University of WollongongResearch Online

University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections

2000

Learners as actors: strategies for computer-enhanced learning encountersRod SimsUniversity of Wollongong

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for theUniversity of Wollongong. For further information contact ManagerRepository Services: morgan@uow.edu.au.

Recommended CitationSims, Rod, Learners as actors: strategies for computer-enhanced learning encounters, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University ofWollongong. Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, 2000. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1781

LEARNERS AS ACTORS:

STRATEGIES FOR COMPUTER-ENHANCED LEARNING ENCOUNTERS

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

from

UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

by

Roderick Sims BA, MA, DipEd

Faculty of Education

2000

SUMMARY

The extent to which interactivity represents an implicit characteristic of computer-based

learning environments has been increasingly scrutinised. Investigating the question as to

which aspects of interactivity contribute to the engagement and focus of the learner

during such encounters, a research study was devised to examine the ways in which

learners both perceive and work with interactive constructs. Working with a total group

of 70 participants from an undergraduate program in multimedia studies, a qualitative

methodology was employed to examine, through survey and observation, those

elements of computer-based interactive environments that impact on the overall

effectiveness of, and subsequent engagement with, content material.

Considering the array of approaches to computer-based learning, such as instructivist

and constructivist, the theoretical paradigms contributing to design and implementation

and the contemporary proposals advocating metaphors of theatre and narrative, the

outcomes of the research supported an extended focus for design. Whereas learners

appear to have clear expectations of what an interactive learning environment will

provide, the actual experience of that environment can appear confused through

conflicting messages and missing information. Conceptualising the learner-computer

relationship as a series of encounters, and positioning the learner as an integral character

or actor within that encounter, can enhance the user-centred design approach and extend

the design focus beyond that of content and interface.

Adopting such an approach will potentially assist in making computer-based

educational technology work more consistently and result in even more effective and

engaging encounters.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A number of individuals and departments provided generous assistance in the course of

this project. Support from m y Head of School, Barry Wilks, enabled m e to undertake a

6-month Study Leave program during which I was able to complete the thesis. Southern

Cross University, through an Internal Research Grants scheme, awarded m e two grants

which provided the funding for the purchase of video equipment and consumables as

well as the employment of a research assistant, Yvonne Taynton. Yvonne assisted with

the video taping, copying of tapes and transcription of the articulated responses.

Suzanne Britt also assisted with the transcription of the articulated responses. Their

support is gratefully acknowledged.

In total, 70 students participated in the project and I would like to extend my thanks to

each of them for their cheerful and generous contributions.

Special acknowledgment is also due to my two supervisors, Professor John Hedberg and

Associate Professor Barry Harper who, when the time was right, provided m e the

encouragement and insights necessary to complete this work.

To my two children, Geoff and Elle, my love for your ceaseless ability to explain the

world w e are passing on to you. To m y mother Alison, m y gratitude for your insistence

on grammar and spelling accuracy and to m y colleagues throughout the world, thank

you for the camaraderie and intellectual stimulation.

And last, but by no means least, I find difficulty expressing in words the support

provided by Johanna, m y partner. Without her tireless encouragement, challenge,

motivation and editorial assistance, I could not imagine having written these words.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

PROLOGUE: A PERSONAL ODYSSEY Introduction P-l

From Pompeii to PLATO P-l

Promises - Practices - Realities P-3

From Classroom to Theatre P-6

Overview of the Study P-7

The Journey Continues P-10

CHAPTER 1: THE PROMISE OF INTERACTIVITY Introduction 1-11

What is Interactivity? 1-11

A Rationale for StudyingInteractivity 1-17

Contemporary Positions 1-34

Conclusions 1-36

CHAPTER 2: THE CONDITIONS OF mTERACTTVTrV Introduction 2-3 7

Approaches to Learning 2-37

Human-Computer Interaction 2-46

Design and Development 2-53

Individualisation 2-58

Communication 2-65

Conclusion 2-69

CHAPTER 3: THE PRACTICE OF INTERACTIVITY

Introduction 3-70

Issues of Interactivity 3-71

Interactivity and Narrative 3-91

Interactivity on Stage 3-97

Conclusion 3-101

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction 4-102

Research Issues 4-103

Using a Qualitative Framework 4-108

Delimitations of the Study 4-113

Participants . 4-114

Conclusion 4-119

II

CHAPTER 5: EXPECTATIONS OF INTEI__CTrVTrY

Introduction 5-121

Methodology 5-122

Question 1: What makes an educational multimedia product interactive? 5-129

Question 2: What do you see as the major characteristics of interactivity? 5-139

Question 3: What do you see as the major benefits of interactivity to the learning process? 5-148

Conclusion 5-159

CHAPTER 6: INTERACTIVITY AND LEARNING

Introduction 6-162

Methodology 6-163

Results 6-170

Interactivity and Learning 6-173

Conclusion 6-186

CHAPTER 7: WORKING WITH INTERACTIVITY

Introduction 7-187

Participants 7-188

Instruments 7-188

Process 7-190

Video Taping 7-191

Analysis 7-192

Software Analysis 7-195

Summary 7-199

Title 1: Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat 7-200

Title 2: Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats 7-217

Title 3: Frontier 7-234

Title 4: Australian Stamps 7-249

Title 5: New Zealand Stamps 7-267

Title 6: Real Wild Child 7-274

Title 7: Voodoo Lounge 7-287

Conclusion 7-300

CHAPTER 8: INTERACTIVITY ON STAGE Introduction 8-306

The Phenomenon of Interactivity 8-307

Interference and Interactivity 8-311

Interactive Balance 8-312

Learners in Control 8-313

Interactivity as Negotiation 8-317

Interactive Encounters 8-320

The Learner as Actor 8-323

Conclusion 8-326

REFERENCES 328

APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1: THE PROMISE OF INTERACTIVITY

Table 1.1: A Taxonomy for Educational Technology 1-14

Table 1.2: Human-Human Interactivity (expandedfrom Rackman & Morgan, 1977) 1-16

CHAPTER 2: THE CONDITIONS OF INTERACTIVITY Table 2.1: Interactive Constructs and Learners 2-40

Table 2.2: Interactive Constructs and Content 2-40

Table 2.3: Interactive Constructs and Pedagogy 2-41

Table 2.4: Interactive Constructs and Context 2-42

Table 2.5: Learning Outcome and Instructional Tactics 2-42

CHAPTER 3: THE PRACTICE OF INTERACTIVITY

Table 3.1: Dimensions of Interactivity (Gery, 1987) 3-81

Table 3.2: Classifications of Interactivity 3-86

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Table 4.1: Roles in Computer-Enhanced Learning 4-117

CHAPTER 6: INTERACTIVITY AND LEARNING Table 6.1: Examples of Interactivity Assigned to User-Control 6-164

Table 6.2: Examples of Interactivity Assigned to Program Control 6-165

Table 6.3: Representative Data Collection for Example 1 6-168

Table 6.4: Examples of Program Controlled Interactivity Allocated to Supporting Learning 6-175

Table 6.5: Examples of User Controlled Interactivity Allocated to Supporting Learning 6-177

Table 6.6: User Control - Hinders Learning by Groups 6-180

Table 6.7: User Control Examples Allocated as Potentially Hindering Learning 6-181

Table 6.8: Program Control Examples Allocated to Hindering Learning 6-183

Table 6.9: Program Control Example Potentially Hindering Learning 6-185

CHAPTER 7: WORKING WITH INTERACTIVITY Table 7.1: Titles and Participants 7-189

Table 7.2: Interaction Types 7-194

Table 7.3: Sample Data for Interactive Profiles 7-197

Table 7.4: Interactive Options in Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat 7-201

Table 7.5: Interactive Options Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats 7-218

Table 7.6: Interactive Options in Frontier 7-235

Table 7.7: Interactive Options in Australian Stamps 7-250

Table 7.8: Interactive Options in New Zealand Stamps 7-262

Table 7.9: Interactive Options in Real Wild Child 7-275

Table 7.10: Interactive Options in Voodoo Lounge 7-288

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1: THE PROMISE OF INTERACTIVITY Figure 1.1: Typical Tutorial Flow (Alessi & Trollip, 1991:18) 1-12

Figure 1.2: Early PLA TO Courseware - Distillation Set-up 1-20

Figure 1.3: Early PLATO Courseware - Distillation Manipulation 1-21

CHAPTER 3: THE PRACTICE OF INTERACTIVITY

Figure 3.1: Forms of Interaction (Rhodes &Azbell, 1985:31) 3-76

Figure 3.2: Interaction of Teacher, Learner and Group Influences (Gilbert & Moore, 1998:34) 3-85

Figure 3.3: Narrative, Play and Interactivity 3-95

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Figure 4.1: Major Research Events 4-107

Figure 4.2: Data Collection and Analysis 4-108

Figure 4.3: Age and Gender (Group A) 4-115

Figure 4.4: Age and Gender (Group B) 4-115

Figure 4.5: Experience Studying/Working with Instructional Technology 4-116

Figure 4.6: Occasions Learning with Technology 4-118

Figure 4.7: Occasions Designing Educational Technology 4-118

Figure 4.8: Occasions Developing Educational Technology 4-119

CHAPTER 5: EXPECTATIONS OF mTERACTTVTTY

Methodology

Figure 5.1: Preparing Response for analysis with NUDVST 5-124

Figure 5.2: Node Hierarchy - Initial Structure 5-725

Figure 5.3: Node Hierarchy - Final Structure 5-727

Figure 5.4: Distribution of Responses for Each Question by Theme 5-725

Survey Question 1

Figure 5.5: Percentage Responses by Gender and Theme to Question 1 5-729

Figure 5.6:Percentage Responses by Experience and Theme to Question 1 5-750

Figure 5.7: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Engagement for Question 1 5-737

Figure 5.8: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Communication for Question 1 5-732

Figure 5.9: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Control for Question 1 5-734

Figure 5.10: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Design for Question 1 5-735

Figure 5.11: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Individual for Question 1 5-737

Survey Question 2

Figure 5.12: Percentage Responses by Gender and Theme to Question 2____ 5-739

Figure 5.13: Percentage Responses by Experience and Theme to Question 2 5-140

Figure 5.14: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Engagement for Question 2 5-141

Figure 5.15: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Communication for Question 2 5-742

Figure 5.16: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Control for Question 2 5-144

Figure 5.17: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Design for Question 2 5-145

Survey Question 3

Figure 5.18: Percentage Responses by Gender and Theme to Question 3 5-148

Figure 5.19: Percentage Responses by Experience and Theme to Question 3 5-749

Figure 5.20: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Engagement for Question 3 5-750

Figure 5.21: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Communication for Question 3 5-752

Figure 5.22: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Communication for Question 3 5-753

Figure 5.23: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Learning for Question 3 5-757

CHAPTER 6: INTERACTIVITY AND LEARNING

Figure 6.1: Layout for Allocation of Interactivity Examples 6-166

Figure 6.2: Cards distributed across each quadrant 6-167

Figure 6.3: Cards piled in each quadrant 6-167

Figure 6.4: Combined Data for Example 1 6-769

Figure 6.5: Allocation of Examples by Control 6-770

Figure 6.6: Allocation of Examples by Experience 6-7 72

Figure 6.7: Allocation of Examples by Gender 6-773

Figure 6.8: Allocation of Example 32 by Experience and Gender 6-7 76

Figure 6.9: Differential Allocation of Examples to the UC-SL Quadrant 6-775

Figure 6.10: Allocation for Example 20 by Gender and Experience 6-750

Figure 6.11: Allocation for Example 17 by Experience and Gender 6-752

Figure 6.12: Allocation for Example 32 by Gender and Experience 6-184

Figure 6.13: Allocation for Example 48 by Experience and Gender 6-755

CHAPTER 7: WORKING WITH INTERACTIVITY

Methodology

Figure 7.1: Video and Observation Set-Up 7-797

Figure 7.2: Digraph (Andris & Stueber, 1994) 7-793

Figure 7.3: Sample Content/Interactivity Audit Trail 7-796

Figure 7.4: Interactivity Profile - Percentage Over Time 7-795

Figure 7.5: Cumulative Percentage by Interaction Type 7-795

Title 1: From Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat

Figure 7.6: From Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat 7-200

Figure 7.7: Content Audit Trail for David 7-207

Figure 7.8: Content Audit Trail for Chris 7-202

Figure 7.9: Content Audit Trail for Mark P. 7-203

Figure 7. JO: Interactive Option Not Accessed 7-203

Figure 7.11: Interactivity Profile for David 7-205

Figure 7.12: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for David 7-205

Figure 7.13: Interactivity Profile for Chris 7-206

Figure 7.14: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Chris 7-207

Figure 7.15: Interactive Profile for Mark P. 7-207

Figure 7.16: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Chris Mark P. 7-205

Figure 7.17: Interactive Confusion? 7-209

Title 2: Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats

Figure 7.18: Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats 7-277

Figure 7.19: Content Audit Trail for Allan 7-275

Figure 7.20: Content Audit Trail for Richard 7-279

Figure 7.21: Content Audit Trail for Kate 7-279

Figure 7.22: Interactivity Profile for Allan 7-220

Figure 7.23: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Allan 7-220

Figure 7.24: Interactivity Profile for Richard 7-227

Figure 7.25: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type forRichard_ 7-227

Figure 7.26: Interactivity Profile for Kate 7-222

Figure 7.27: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Kate 7-223

Title 3: Frontier

Figure 7.28: Frontier 7-234

Figure 7.29: Content Audit Trail for Anna 7-235

Figure 7.30: Content Audit Trail for Khali 7-236

Figure 7.31: Content Audit Trail for Nicholas 7-236

Figure 7.32: Interactivity Profile for Anna 7-237

Figure 7.33: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Anna 7-235

Figure 7.34: Interactivity Profile for Kahli 7-235

Figure 7.35: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Kahli 7-239

Figure 7.36: Interactivity Profile for Nicholas 7-239

Figure 7.37: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Nicholas 7-240

Figure 7.38: Communication- Understanding the Purpose 7-243

Figure 7.39: Interface and Perception 7-245

Title 4: The Wonderful World of Australian Stamps

Figure 7.40: The Wonderful World of Australian Stamps 7-249

Figure 7.41: Content Audit Trail for Solveig 7-257

Figure 7.42: Content Audit Trail for Nancy 7-257

Figure 7.43: Interactivity Profile for Solveig 7-252

Figure 7.44: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Solveig 7-252

Figure 7.45: Interactivity Profile for Nancy 7-253

Figure 7.46: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Nancy _ 7-253

Figure 7.47: Controls or Links: Intuitive or Non-Intuitive? 7-256

Figure 7.48: Interface to Access Six Discrete Images 7-257

Title 5: New Zealand Stamps Virtual Album

Figure 7.49: New Zealand Stamps Virtual Album 7-267

Figure 7.50: Content Audit Trail for Tiago 7-263

Figure 7.51: Content Audit Trail for Dusk 7-264

Figure 7.52: Interactivity Profile for Tiago 7-264

Figure 7.53: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Tiago 7-265

Figure 7.54: Interactivity Profile for Dusk 7-265

Figure 7.55: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Dusk 7-266

Figure 7.56: The Collecting Stamps Activity __ 7-265

Title 6: Real Wild Child

Figure 7.57: Real Wild Child 7-274

Figure 7.58: Content Audit Trail for Linda 7-276

Figure 7.59: Content Audit Trail for Mark H. 7-276

Figure 7.60: Interactivity Profile for Linda 7-277

Figure 7.61: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Linda 7-277

Figure 7.62: Interactivity Profile for Mark H. 7-278

Figure 7.63: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Mark H. 7-275

Figure 7.64: Two Rooms and an Information Screen from Real Wild Child 7-253

Title 7: Voodoo Lounge

Figure 7.65: Voodoo Lounge 7-257

Figure 7.66: Content Audit Trail for Jon 7-255

Figure 7.67: Content Audit Trail for Trevor 7-259

Figure 7.68: Interactivity Profile for Jon 7-259

Figure 7.69: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Jon 7-290

Figure 7.70: Interactivity Profile for Trevor 7-290

Figure 7.71: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Trevor 7-297

Conclusion

Figure 7.72: Sample Interactivity Profile 7-302

CHAPTER 8: mTERACTIVITY ON STAGE Figure 8.1: An Interactive Negotiation ___^ 8-318

PROLOGUE: A PERSONAL ODYSSEY

INTRODUCTION

This thesis is about computers and learners, about the use of software to enhance

learning and about the ways learners and computers interact. Producing this thesis has

not simply been a matter of completing a rigorous, academic research process, but is

better seen as a product of a journey that began in m y childhood and has yet to end.

From m y first encounters with computers, m y experience in developing and teaching

computer-based learning and m y research focus on computer-based interactive learning,

I have maintained a belief and optimism in the value learners can gain from educational

material delivered by and accessed from computer-based applications. This brief

introduction expresses how that optimism has been maintained, why the research is

important for our field and the direction I, and others, might take from here.

FROM POMPEII TO PLATO

As a young child in the early 1960s I emigrated from Great Britain to Australia. As we

sailed from Southampton on a cold night in late November, I began a journey that was

to expose m e to new and different places. I can still recall the rough voyage through the

Bay of Biscay and our first port of call at Gibraltar, where I watched monkeys

scrambling up the famous rock, not cowering behind bars. Then the smooth blue of the

Mediterranean and our journey from Naples to the silent homes and temples of Pompeii

- where small figures were captured in their final attempt for escape, encased in stone

forever - with a smoking Vesuvius towering above.

But it was in Port Said where I first encountered a glimpse of the magic our world can

offer. O n a balmy evening, strolling through the sandy grey-brown streets, our family

was confronted by two men in long flowing robes, one of w h o m proceeded to pull an

egg out of m y ear! The magic fascinated me, but as he tried the same trick with m y

more conservative father, he was given a few pieces of change and we moved on.

P-2

Over the ensuing years, m y wonder at the magic open to us has not diminished.

Towards the end of high school, I can vividly recall the amazing sights of inland

Australia and an emu-dance performed by a local Aborigine. Here was a man in old

baggy pants, a jacket festooned in badges, a tilted army hat and a weathered, bristly face

who transformed almost instantly into a desert bird hunting and pecking through the

scrub. Not long after, as an undergraduate in the early 1970s, I encountered m y first

computer. While writing a Computerised Crook Catching program, a simulated exercise

to compare witness descriptions with the characteristics of known criminals to identify

likely suspects, I learned much about both the power and simplicity of this technology.

In the same way that a person could, from m y cultural perspective, almost magically

transform into a bird, so too the computer could transform data into valuable

information.

Then after working as both a teacher and computer programmer, I was fortunate to view

a presentation by the designer of P L A T O (Programmed Learning for Automated

Teaching Operations) to the 1976 Australian Computer Society conference in Perth. Of

particular fascination was the moment when Dr Bitzer was, by touching the display,

moving bees from one screen location to another. During this demonstration he paused

to make observations to the audience but was interrupted by the computer saying "Dr

Bitzer - you still have a bee on your finger"! This was a defining moment for me, as I

perceived a potential for communication and interaction between computer and human

that could engage, humour and educate.

In the same way that these images of entombed figures, street magician and desert

impersonator have engaged m y senses, so has that initial magic of P L A T O provided m e

with a context to understand computers as a learning tool. This is the magic of surprise,

like an egg appearing from nowhere, or the magic of awareness when links between

people and the land emerge, or the magic of delight seeing animals in their natural

habitat. Perhaps more accurately, it is simply the magic of our dynamic, living planet.

However it is this magic which we have the capability to harness and expose through

computer-based learning experiences.

Over the past twenty years I have endeavoured to apply this analogy of magic through

m y work as a computer-based learning analyst, courseware developer and teacher of

educational technology. However, as the challenge to make educational technology

P-3

work better remains (Reeves, 1999), I wonder whether the potential of computer-based

learning technology has in some way been constrained - has its magic been

compromised?

PROMISES - PRACTICES - REALITIES

Over much the same period as I was discovering this form of magic, so computers and

Computer-Based Learning (CBL) were emerging and evolving. W h e n first conceived,

computer-based learning was manifested as a teletypewriter terminal linked to a

mainframe computer - input was by keyboard and output through printed responses.

Since then computer technology has changed remarkably - from the introduction of

stand-alone personal computers to the development and rise of the internet and world­

wide web, and from monochrome displays to high-resolution colour images enhanced

with audio, video, graphics and animation. Likewise, C B L has evolved from question

and answer tutorials to exciting micro-worlds and information landscapes. Learners

from pre-school to the workplace have been confronted with a vast array of tutorials,

drills, simulations, tests, games and performance-support systems. As the technology

developed, so did the complexity of the displays and the activities and choices made

available to the learner.

Nevertheless, while many CBL developments were presented to demonstrate the

effectiveness of the technology, research studies and reports have continued to debate

the overall efficacy of the technology in terms of adding value to the learning process

(Kulik, Bangert & Williams 1983; Juchau, 1999). This on-going debate has been

paralleled with new releases of computer hardware and software, frequently promoted

as providing the necessary enhancements to add such value to computer-based learning.

In the past four decades this technological imperative has seen coloured displays,

hypertext, multimedia and the world wide web boldly paraded as solutions for effective

education. Not so long ago it was the multimedia C D - R O M that was touted as being

able to truly enhance the learning process, now it is the internet and web-based learning.

However, it is m y perception that it will only be through the endeavours of specialised

development teams with expertise in education and technology that consistently

effective computer-based learning will be achieved. Computer technology will enable

the implementation of applications designed to represent contemporary approaches to

teaching and learning.

P-4

The promise of computer-based learning was of one where the individual learner could

access educationally structured content, control the pace and sequence of its

presentation and, through this interaction, learn from questions, answers and

manipulation of objects. This individualised and adaptive environment, it was predicted,

would change the traditional teacher-learner relationship to a learner-centred and

teacher-facilitated environment. Learning would not only be faster, but better.

The interactive nature of computer-based environments - that is one in which the

computer could respond to a user's input - was perceived as integral to the learning

process (Alessi & Trollip, 1991). It was assumed that in the same way a teacher

responded to and communicated with students, so too the computer could provide

individual responses and feedback. The interaction embedded within this human-

computer encounter was promoted as comparable to the teacher-learner interaction.

In order to achieve this promise, a range of practices designed to support the

implementation of effective educational software applications have also evolved. These

embrace a combination of contemporary software development methodologies (ranging

from systems analysis to rapid prototyping), instructional systems development

techniques and learning or instructional theories (spanning behavioural, instructional,

cognitive and constructive approaches). One's philosophical approach to learning and

training influence the way in which content is presented to the learner and the

opportunities provided to the learner to interact during that presentation.

The software tools created specifically to support the development of computer-based

learning resources have ranged from complex programming languages to fill-in-the-box

templates; the former often too complex for educators, the latter too rigidly structured to

take advantage of the power of computer technology. Having worked as a developer of

educational software, it is m y experience that implementing interactivity is especially

difficult if one does not have a comprehensive understanding of both the computer and

pedagogy. It is m y perception that the recurrent criticisms of this technology may partly

be due to developing educational software without an appropriate skill combination, as

the level of computer programming skills will to some extent determine the

effectiveness of the presentation and interactions (Sims, 1997a). As w e stand today, this

is the role of a development team with complementary knowledge and skills.

P-5

Outputs from these development practices have been manifested through a diverse

range of computer-based learning applications, from the commercial educational games

directed primarily at the schools' market, to those produced in-house for the workplace.

The school environment has generally seen an emphasis on constructivist aspects of

learning, with the computer used as a tool, whereas the work environments have

evolved a more traditional instructivist approach, with the computer more frequently

taking the role of trainer. Recently however, applications embodying performance

support systems and just-in-time training have become more widespread. In the

university sector, developments have evolved from those of individual enthusiasts and

student-driven applications to one where centralised management of educational

technology initiatives is more commonplace.

The practice of computer-based learning has also been influenced by the research

culture, focusing on issues such as learning outcomes, individual differences, learning

styles and learner control. The operation of learner control has been one of the more

frequent objects of research, and while findings have been ambivalent, the overall

quality of the research has also been criticised (Reeves, 1993). Other research efforts

have focused on the achievement of desired learning from specific applications.

However, in a field with learners ranging from pre-school to adults, topics as diverse as

elementary mathematics and theatre and outcomes varying from knowledge to skills to

attitudes, it is not feasible to generalise when specific operational attributes of the

technology will work effectively. However, as computer technology has an increasing

impact on our day-to-day environment, the challenge remains to maintain a research

agenda to focus on making computer-based learning work better (Reeves, 1999).

The field of educational technology has also been subjected to rigorous and contentious

debate. From the design perspective, the argument has focused on the means by which

material should be structured to maximise instructional or educational effectiveness,

typified by the instructivist-constructivist arguments (Merrill, Drake & Pratt, 1996). The

alternatives described by Taylor (1980), where the computer can be either tutor (doing

the teaching), tool (helping the learner) or tutee (learning from the learner), also reflect

the complexity of applying computer technology to the educational context. The extent

to which the media itself impacts learning outcomes has also received considerable

attention (Clarke, 1983; Kozma, 1991), challenging the assumption that new computer

technology will de facto provide enhanced learning opportunities.

P-6

The notion of interactivity, considered an implicit attribute of the technology, has also

undergone analysis and critique. Early analyses of interactivity (Rhodes & Azbell,

1985; Hannafin, 1989) proposed a hierarchical structure in which more interactivity was

considered more desirable. Taxonomies constructed by Jonassen (1985), Schwier &

Misanchuk (1993) and Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat (1991) extended the

complexity of interactivity, although focusing on more being better. Sims (1997a)

described interactivity from a development perspective, suggesting the different types of

learner-computer interaction would enable more engaged learning and Aldrich, Rogers

& Scaife (1998) introduced the cognitive aspects of the interactive process.

Nevertheless, over this period the concept of interactivity has been regarded as difficult

to define to the extent that Rose (1999) queried its role in the computer-based learning

process. As the field evolves and changes, so must our interpretation of what constitutes

an interactive learning environment.

One of the intriguing aspects about this evolutionary process is that it in some ways

represents an attempt to use the computer to support a range of learning experiences by

imposing existing educational artefacts, such as a classroom, book or teacher. But is the

computer merely a mirror for our existing artefacts, or is it in some way an independent

different device that w e must understand better in order to maximise its effectiveness

and application within educational environments? Rather than trying to model the

computer after existing artefacts, constructing totally new models on which to base

applications for education and learning m a y enhance the structure and effectiveness of

computer-based interactivity.

FROM CLASSROOM TO THEATRE

From the more formal prescriptions of instructional design and behaviourism have

emerged new expectations of computer-based learning that address this issue of h o w the

computer should best be used. Jonassen (1996) emphasises the importance of the

computer as a tool, introducing the concept of Mind Tools as a means to express the

relationship between learner and computer. Work has also been undertaken to assess the

extent to which computer-based applications might be compared to theatre (Laurel,

1991) and the role narrative plays in supporting understanding and engagement

(Plowman, 1996a). What these analyses suggest is that computer-based technology,

especially in the learning environment, is not simply an animated, multimedia text, but a

P-7

complex and intricate relationship between the learner and those responsible for

creating the application itself. Using the theatre analogy, w e can imagine the learner as

actor and the developer as author and director; the actor interprets their role, but under

the guidance of the director and with give and take from both. With the narrative

analogy, the learner is best served when they become part of the story and take on the

role of a lead character in that narrative.

The importance of these approaches is that communication between learner and

computer is not simply one of transmission, but one that should be dynamic, adaptive

and individual. H o w this can be achieved using computer technology is not necessarily

a technical issue, but rather one where developers are challenged to establish with the

learner the roles they can adopt and the possibilities available to them within the

particular application.

The essence of this shift from classroom to theatre can be expressed as an attempt to

redefine the relationship between computer and learner. The analogy of computer as

teacher has not produced the hoped-for results and the instructional design and software

development procedures have failed to generate consistently good material. In contrast,

the positioning of the learner as actor and character is a relatively new concept in the

area of computer-based learning. This then suggests that computer technology is in need

of its o w n set of design and development structures, rather than adapting to those

originally designed for other media or environments.

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Despite the research, the technology and the applications, the promise of computer

based learning technology has not been consistently realised. I maintain m y belief in the

power and potential of this technology as a learning resource and consider it timely to

examine the field from a different perspective. Rather than assess a single application

on its ability to impact learning outcomes, this study was designed to focus on the very

aspect that defines the field - interactivity. If w e can better understand the ways in

which learners communicate and interact with computer-based learning applications,

then w e should be able to provide a more flexible and comfortable environment in

which to undertake that learning. More importantly, if w e can better understand the way

learners wish to communicate and learn with computer-based material, then

P-8

developments in both computer technology and learning practice may also be

accommodated through enhanced learner-inclusive design strategies.

This study examines the interactive nature of computers in the context of applications

where the user is working independently with content material structured to support a

learning process or training function. While the technology has been demonstrated with

all levels of learner - from pre-school to adult - the prime focus group for this study is

the adult learner. And while there are many ways in which interaction and interactivity

might be considered (for example learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner and

learner-interface), the study is specifically interested in the interactions and associated

interactivity that take place with the independent learner. In brief, the study is focusing

on the ways in which individuals, in a learning context, process and understand material

presented by the computer.

Computer-based learning has experienced promises of its value as a learning resource,

debates on its educational effectiveness, variations in h o w people learn and an almost

diffuse understanding of the nature of interactivity. Given this environment, this study

explores the extent to which a deeper understanding of the interactive process might

better enable the success of computer-based learning applications.

The following summary of the chapters describes how these questions were derived, the

methods used to collect data and respond to these questions and the implications for the

ongoing development of effective computer-based learning applications.

Chapter 1 explores the promises of educational technology and the elements within the

field that have prescribed the importance of interactivity in this form of learning

environment. From this, the first major research question is posed:

What expectations do people have from interactive learning

environments?

Chapter 2 examines in detail the relevant theories and research that describe the

conditions of computer-based learning. These include Human-Computer Interaction,

Individual Differences, Learner Control, Learning Theory, Instructional Design,

Courseware Development, Communication and contemporary approaches. From this

analysis the second research question is derived:

P-9

In what ways are interactive elements considered to impact on

the learning process?

Chapter 3 focuses on the practice of interactivity and the various ways in which it has

been understood in the context of computer-based learning. This focus provides a

context for the third research question:

In what ways do elements of interactivity affect product

useability and effectiveness?

Chapter 4, covering the research methodology, provides a context for employing an

essentially qualitative approach to the collection and analysis of the data. The chapter

also introduces the participants involved in the study and the importance of their

characteristics and experience.

Chapter 5 details the methodology and results associated with the expectations of

interactivity as described by the participants, providing a context from which to assess

the perceived impact of an interactive application on learning.

Chapter 6 describes the methodology and results in terms of the way in which

participants identified the relationship between a set of examples of interactivity and the

extent to which they are considered to support or hinder the learning process. The

analysis provides a framework to reassess the links between interactivity and learning.

Chapter 7 provides an extensive analysis of seven separate CD-ROM titles and

documents the methodology and results in terms of the way in which participants

responded to the design, interface and interactive elements embedded in those products.

The data analysis provides input on the way people interact and the subsequent success

and effectiveness of those interactions.

Chapter 8 details the outcomes of the research with respect to directions in which the

design and development of computer-based learning applications might be enhanced,

including directions for future research.

P-10

THE JOURNEY CONTINUES

This however is by no means an end point. H o w w e learn within our particular

environment will continue to be a dynamic process because our environments are

continually changing and the performance demands placed on individuals within those

environments will also change. The technology, which even now plays such a critical

role in our social infrastructure, will continue to develop and change. H o w w e access

learning resources through that technology will also change.

Whatever the learning paradigm or technology, interaction of some form will take place

between the learner and the computer. Developing an understanding of the processes

taking place during these interactions will ultimately assist the development of more

consistently effective learning resources. More importantly, it may help release that

certain magic which has often been missing from computer-based learning resources.

CHAPTER 1:

THE PROMISE OF INTERACTIVITY

INTRODUCTION

This study focuses on the relationship between the learner and the computer, and the

means by which that relationship or interaction can be structured to maximise the

engagement with content, the extraction of meaning from that engagement and the

subsequent transfer and generalisation of that meaning to specific tasks or performance.

Successful learning can be achieved through combinations of independent study with

resource material, collaboration with peers and classroom interactions with teacher or

trainer. The creation of these interactive forms in computer-based learning applications

has been one of the challenges facing the educational technology community. Despite

extensive investment and research into the development of these products, w e continue

to be encouraged to determine ways in which computer-based learning experiences can

be made more effective.

This chapter examines the promise of interactivity in terms of those issues that have had

most impact on its understanding and implementation. It will firstly examine the

meaning of interactivity, secondly develop a rationale for studying interactivity as a

concept and finally identify contemporary approaches relevant to human-computer

interaction. Through this analysis a context is provided to assess the extent to which the

promise of human-computer interaction in learning environments has been realised.

WHAT is INTERACTIVITY?

Defining the concept

Computer technology has been applied to a diversity of functions within educational

environments. These range from the provision of drawing applications for kindergarten

activities to the extensive range of reading and mathematical games for primary

students, and from the elaborate discovery and exploratory resources designed to

support high school and tertiary learning to the skill and performance specific

applications for business, government and defence. This technology has also been used

3 0009 0325023

1-12

in a range of administrative functions such as recording student progress and managing

student access to, and delivery of, learning materials.

Across these diverse environments, the concept of interactivity has been understood as

both an inherent and beneficial attribute of the technology. According to the Macquarie

Dictionary (1998), the word interactive can refer to both having to do with things or

persons which act on each other and, with specific reference to computers, being

immediately responsive to commands, data etc, as opposed to systems arranged for

batch processing. While the latter definition is a useful means to differentiate forms of

computer processing, in the context of learning the significant function of interactivity

relates to things or persons acting on each other and the outcomes of that interaction. It

is this aspect of the interactive process that is crucial to, and the substance of, this study.

Initial interpretations of interactivity in computer-based learning tended to focus on the

responsiveness of the computer rather than the interaction between objects, as typified

by Gery (1987:6):

A n interactive learning experience between a learner and a computer in which the computer provides the majority of the stimulus, the learner must respond, and the computer analyzes the response and provides feedback to the learner.

One of the most common implementations of this facility was in the form of a Tutorial

structure (Figure 1.1).

Introductory Section

Present Information

V JL Judge

Response

Closing Section

Figure 1.1: Typical Tutorial Flow (after Alessi & Trollip, 1991:18)

1-13

The diagram represents a basic learner-computer interaction where information is

presented and a prompt generated to which the learner must respond; the feedback

provided is conditional on the interpretation or analysis of the response by the

computer. This information-prompt-response-feedback cycle was repeated until the

program or computer halted the process. The extent to which the learner gains meaning

from these interactions is crucial to the overall effectiveness of computer-based

interactive learning.

An interactive paradox

As computer-based learning has developed, so has input on the nature of the interactive

environment. However, early optimism has been countered by recent debate on the very

nature of interactivity, as these conflicting accounts indicate:

Computer-based instruction provides greater potential for truly interactive instruction than any mediated teaching device to date, excluding in many instances, the human tutor. (Jonassen, 1988:97)

In denying the possibility of difference and in elucidating differance, deconstruction essentially reveals interactivity to be not a conceptual unity, defined in terms of clear distinctions between antithetical terms, but as a fragmented, inconsistent, and rather messy notion encompassing both privileged and marginalised binaries, and the range of meanings in between. (Rose, 1999:48)

Given the current interest in interactive constructs such as levels (Sims, 1997a),

cognitive aspects (Aldrich, Rogers & Scaife, 1998) and measurement (Stouppe, 1998)

contrasted by the argument that interactive and interactivity lack "denotive value"

(Rose, 1999), it is important to reassess not only the notion of interactivity but its role in

enhancing the learning process in its various forms.

Using this aim as a working concept, an examination of a series of contributing factors

enables the true complexities associated with applying computer-based interactions to

learning to be better understood. The following sections provide a context for studying

interactivity and the essential factors that have helped define its characteristics.

A context for the study

To develop a specific focus for this study, I have extended a taxonomy proposed by

Gery (1987) to incorporate more recent implementations of educational technology as

well as definitions of the terms applied (see Table 1.1). While the taxonomy is designed

1-14

to demonstrate the range of terms associated with computer applications in teaching and

learning, I have also included descriptions (Macquarie Dictionary, 1998) for each

element to more specifically focus on the purpose of the implementation. By

differentiating the device (a computer or other technology), its function in the learning

process and the intended outcome of that function, a more accurate focus can be placed

on interactivity and its projected impact on the desired outcome. The extensions to the

taxonomy are the inclusion of the mediation function and the communication outcome,

arising from the development of web-based applications.

DEVICE

Computer

Technology

an apparatus for performing mathematical computations electronically according to a series of stored instructions called a program

the branch of knowledge that deals with science or engineering and its practice, as applied to industry

FUNCTION

Assisted

Based

Enhanced

Facilitated

Managed

Mediated

to give support, help or aid to in some undertaking or effort

a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation: basis

to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify

to make easier or less difficult; help forward

to take charge or care of

to act between parties to effect an agreement

OUTCOME

Communication

Education

Instruction

Learning

Training

the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing or signs

the imparting or acquisition of knowledge, skill etc

knowledge or information imparted

knowledge acquired by systematic study

the development in oneself or another of certain skills, habits and attitudes

Table 1.1: A Taxonomy for Educational Technology

Although the capabilities of computer technology have changed significantly over the

past four decades, the actual function and outcomes derived from its use remain largely

unchanged. A n assessment of interactivity and learning is not so much about what can

be achieved technologically, but rather its relevance to knowledge and skill acquisition.

As detailed in Chapter 4: Research Methodology, the participants contributing to this

study fall into the category of adult learners. Determining how they might best work

with computer technology to learn and apply some new skill or knowledge suggests a

function and outcome mix such as Computer Enhanced/Assisted Learning (CEAL) or

1-15

Computer Enhanced/Assisted Training (CEAT). To provide a general term to reflect

this focus, the concept of Computer Enhanced Learning (CEL) will be used throughout

the study - that is, knowledge acquired, and raised to a higher degree, by systematic

study from an apparatus for performing mathematical computations according to a

series of stored instructions. Where appropriate, the term C B E (Computer Based

Education) will be used to refer to the general field of computer technology being

applied to the overall educational process.

The importance of using such a descriptive device for assessing the technology can be

seen in the different ways such terms have been used. For example, the literature from

American studies tends to refer to Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) whereas those

from Britain and Australia often refer to Computer Assisted Learning (CAL). The

implications for interactivity when the computer is designed as an instructor to impart

knowledge (CAI) compared to a tool for learning to acquire knowledge (CAL) are

significant in terms of the learner's role. Is the learner interacting in response to

information presentation (CAI), or by manipulation of objects to develop understanding

(CAL)? The answer to this lies as much with the designer's approach to teaching and

learning as with that of learners themselves.

By identifying which aspect of computer technology is being applied to the learning

process, a more exact assessment of learning can be made. This is especially important

as there have been periods when terms like intelligent have been included in the

taxonomy, such as Intelligent Computer Assisted Instruction, in an attempt to

demonstrate that advanced software engineering practices may result in more effective

and adaptive learning (Kearsely, 1987). In practice however this intelligence has been

difficult to achieve. A more attainable objective may be to implement educational

software where the learner believes (is under the illusion) that they are engaging with an

intelligent entity rather than the software demonstrating intelligence from the

perspective of computer science.

Illusions of interactivity

Within the framework of an information-prompt-response-feedback cycle, C E L

interactivity came to be understood. This concept developed because of the acceptance

within educational environments that interaction between teacher and learner as well as

1-1

learner and learner was one of the essential components of the educational process. If

such human-human interactions could be transformed into a computer environment then

education itself could be embodied in the computer medium. While the responsiveness

of the computer was one dimension of this interactivity, its success as an educational

device meant that it had also to provide the user with an illusion of interactivity in terms

of objects acting upon one another.

INTERACTIVE BEHAVIOURS

Propose Puts forward a new concept suggestion or course of action

Creates a query for analysis by the application

Build Extends or develops a proposal made by another person

Based on computer-generated information, creates or extends the concept for other learners to consider

Support Conscious or direct declaration of support or agreement with another person

Indicating agreement with computer-generated information (which could be stored for subsequent access by other learners)

Disagree Conscious, direct and reasoned declaration of disagreement or criticism of another person's concepts Indication that the current proposition is not supported (with the expectation that the application acknowledges this position and makes the information available to other learners)

Defend/ Attack

Attack another person's position or defensively strengthen one's own (value judgements and emotional overtones) Expresses d/sagreemenf by a meter which indicates level of disagreement.

Block Place block in path of a proposal or concept without alternative or reasoned disagreement Suggest no further presentation of material as it is incorrect or inconsistent

Open Expose self to risk or ridicule through admission of mistakes or inadequacies.

Indicating that the content presented is not understood.

Test Seek to establish whether an earlier contribution understood

Request confirmation that input has been recorded and processed.

Summarise Summarise or restate in compact form content of previous discussion or consideration

Opportunity to record individual summaries of material.

Seek Seek facts, opinions or clarification from other individuals. Request additional information from other sources (knowledge base, internet, other users)

Give Offer facts, opinions or clarification

Option to enter additional information.

Shut Out Exclude or attempt to exclude another group member.

Opportunity to delete existing material.

Bring In Direct attempt to involve another group member

Option to request additional information from other sources or concurrent users.

Table 1.2: Human-Human Interactivity (expandedfrom Rackman & Morgan, 1977)

To understand the importance of this illusion, it is necessary to examine some of those

characteristics implicit in human-human interactions and establish the implications for

human-computer interactions. For example, Rackman & Morgan (1977) provide a list

of such interactions (Table 1.2) which I have annotated with the potential implication

for CEL, as indicated by the observations italicised. For example, while the interactive

1-17

behaviour of seeking can be implemented relatively easily in a computer environment,

that of proposing would only be effective if the application were programmed to

address learner-initiated queries. O f course, these interactions are implicit in computer-

mediated communication applications, but not necessarily in human-computer products.

The importance of interactivity to the educational environment is also evidenced in a

recent analysis where social and instructional interactivity are identified as two major

elements to be considered in education (Gilbert & Moore, 1998). This distinction is

important as it highlights two separate processes of interaction - interpersonal and

educational. Being able to implement representations of these in a C E L environment is

one of the challenges of achieving its promise.

Interactivity as a concept can be viewed as either a function of computer systems or as a

process between two people. Given the definitions of Gery (1987) and Jonassen (1988)

it appears that the interactive functionality of computers was anticipated to be able to

replicate human-human interactions in some form. However, interactivity in terms of

human communication is a complex issue and has yet to be concisely defined in terms

of C E L applications (Rose, 1999). To achieve the promise in the C E L context

interactivity must be assessed with more focus on creating an illusion of human-human

relationships and communication.

A RATIONALE FOR STUDYING INTERACTIVITY

Features and benefits

While defining the concept of interactivity provides a context to interpret its meaning in

terms of this study, valuable insights into the nature of interactivity in the context of

computer-based learning can also be gained from its perceived features and benefits. In

other words, the extent to which interactivity is implicit in the prescribed benefits of

computer-based learning environments. One means to achieve this is to review the

different technological devices that have been used to support the design, development

and/or implementation of teaching and learning materials.

The origins of these audiovisual devices can be traced to the early 1900s, with research

on their effect on learning originating at least in the 1920s (Russell, 1999), and now

continuing from the use of educational television to current computer-based and internet

1-18

applications (Reiser, 1987). The major features emerging with C E L were seen through

individualised and mastery-based learning in terms of pacing and control, where "due to

its interactive capabilities, the computer can be programmed to adapt instruction to the

needs of the individual learner" Reiser (1987:38). As will be demonstrated in Chapter

3: The Practice of Interactivity, the achievement of truly adaptive C E L environments

has continued to vex development initiatives. Because it is an extremely complex

process to write a computer application that will effectively adapt to an individual

learner and provide a set of interactive learning experiences that will enable that learner

to develop knowledge and skills, few products have been able to demonstrate truly

adaptive functionality. One recently produced application, Stage Struck (National

Institute of Dramatic Art, 1998), allows individual learners to create and manipulate

their o w n performances, adapting the presentation to their o w n interests. However, its

range of options does not extend to adaptation to the individual learner.

In essence, it was recognised that the communication facilities between keyboard and

computer could be applied to an educational or instructional format; a student or trainee

could enter into a question and answer dialogue with a computer. The impetus for this

came from the developers of programmed instruction texts, which were based on the

early behaviourist principles of stimulus-response (e.g. Skinner, 1950). If the computer

could be used to analyse responses and provide an answer, then instructional or training

material could be embedded in a computer program and accessed by the learner or

trainee at appropriate times. One of the earliest implementations of this was in the form

of text-based questions presented on a teletypewriter terminal to which the learner

responded with a typed answer. Analysis of this response followed with feedback on the

accuracy of the answer, often in terms of a simple correct or incorrect, reinforcing the

interactive structures proposed by Gery (1987) and Alessi & Trollip (1991), which were

considered to provide the learner with individualised and self-paced learning.

This perspective on the benefits of computer-based education relates to the individual in

terms of access, control and individualisation. This is based on the assumption that all

the necessary content material and associated resources can be contained within a

technological environment and that the individual learner need not go beyond the

bounds of the technology. A different perspective views the benefits in terms of

learning activities being available through the technology that would otherwise be

unavailable in a traditional- educational environment. The debate on benefits and

1-19

effectiveness continues and some contemporary discussions are reassessing the roles

and functions of teacher, learner and curriculum (International Forum of Educational

Technology & Society - IFETS, 1999).

However, given a CEL resource that has been developed for use by a particular

audience, in a particular environment and using a clear rationale, a range of educational

benefits can be identified. Millheim (1996) identifies outcomes such as increased

student interest, higher cognitive processing, teacher involvement and cooperative

learning skills as particular benefits of an interactive learning experience. However, to

achieve this condition considerable design effort must be applied to the development of

the courseware, which will also impact the level of control available to the learner and

the subsequent generation of self-paced and individualised learning.

In essence, the interactivity inherent in a human-computer encounter is perceived to

provide the control necessary for an individual to construct their own path through a set

of learning materials. This individualised and self-paced facility is the foundation on

which learning and computers are linked. The extent to which this control can also elicit

effective communication and engagement continues to be investigated through research

and development initiatives.

Technological factors

At the time computer-based education was initially contemplated, the computer

technology supporting the applications was mainframe, with teletypewriter terminals.

This meant that prospective learners could only communicate with text-based systems,

relying on communication links between their workplace and the location of the

mainframe. Alessi & Trollip (1991) cite two major United States government funded

ventures that heralded the commercial introduction of CEL. The first, P L A T O , was

designed and developed at the University of Illinois during the early 1960s and the

second, TICCIT was developed in conjunction with the Mitre Corporation during the

1970s. Both of these were founded on philosophies that had their basis in educational

psychology.

By the time the PLATO system was introduced commercially, the technology had

evolved to high-resolution touch-screen monitors with communication facilities

allowing synchronous viewing and communication in a geographically independent

1-20

environment. However, the cost of accessing this system was prohibitive for all but the

wealthiest organisations, although some courseware demonstrated high levels of

interactivity and engagement. The screen displays shown in Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3

represent two applications from the P L A T O system which illustrate the involvement

(interactivity) expected from the user in order to complete the learning activity. These

two displays illustrate the type of activity a learner could expect from C E L applications

in the late 1970s.

f\

Her* ere the parts to » distillation apparatus. r_t th* apparatus together by touching a pieca and than touching _h_r_ it goes «n th* column.

0

___:

^r

For help press HELP

Figure 1.2: Early PLATO Courseware - Distillation Set-up

There was the facility to move objects (in this case the apparatus for fractional

distillation) and create a still; correct placement of the objects resulted in another piece

being added to the still, while incorrect placement resulted in the object being returned

to its original screen position.

On completion (as shown in Figure 1.3), learners could adjust a Bunsen burner to

activate the distillation. In addition, objects placed in the correct location but in the

incorrect sequence were also returned. Programming this activity meant modelling the

apparatus construction process, defining the individual objects, allowing these objects to

1-21

be moved, identifying the location in which they had been placed and providing

feedback depending on that placement.

Touch COOL or MPW1 to chare* bath temperature. To 4solleet • fraction touch tha receiver.

Distillation tawparattire vs volume

7a ••

6* ••

s* • •

3* -+-•C -?•

To change bath tenperature

TOUCH

COOL

• 21 4* M a* IM

Mil Iiliters distilled

Figure 1.3: Early PLATO Courseware - Distillation Manipulation

Over the past four decades the technology has developed from monochrome displays to

those capable of displaying millions of colours. The speed and capacity of computer

technology has increased significantly to the extent that a single desktop device is

capable of storing and playing any combination of text, graphics, animations, audio and

video in what has become known as a multimedia environment. Because of these huge

changes in computer technology, and the growth of network-based communications on

a global scale, the challenge is now to integrate effective interactions using a

combination of both desktop and on-line facilities. This will only be achieved through

rigorous design of materials to be used in a computer environment and understanding of

the ways in which media elements can be applied and integrated to form a motivational,

engaging and meaningful learning environment.

As technology developed into the 1990s the concept of multimedia became vogue with

computers having the facility to process and display a combination of media elements

including text, graphics, digital audio, digital video and animation. Through this

1-22

convergence, and with the ability of the user to interact or control these elements, the

multimedia computer was seen as providing higher levels of interaction and therefore

better learning experiences. The emergence of on-line materials where individuals can

access computer-based information using networks linked world wide has extended the

notion of interactivity- the simple human-computer interaction of the desktop computer

has evolved into human-human interaction and communication in a computer-mediated

environment. Even so, because the technology is capable of providing certain facilities

does not necessarily translate into educational benefits, despite the increasing volume of

promises made especially by the adventurous manufacturers.

For example, Boyle (1997) highlights the progression from early CAI applications to

the L O G O work of Papert (1980) to the Minimalist approach of Carroll (1990) and the

subsequent expansion into hypertext and hypermedia applications. Each of these

advances in technology was often equated with greater potential for computer-based

learning. For example, the ability of hypertext to allow users to jump from one location

to another was promoted as simulating the random direction learners often took when

seeking information. O n the other hand, multimedia applications were positioned as

providing another important layer in C E L as better learning would result by working in

a multi-sensory environment. The most recent layer added to the technology of C E L is

web-based learning, characterised by the opportunity for learners to communicate and

collaborate in their o w n time and geographic space.

It can be argued that much of the motivation to use technology in education has been

driven by the manufacturing sector rather than a case of educational demand. The

technological deterministic nature of educational technology, rather than being driven

by educational need, may largely be responsible for the many reports of its lack of

success. This is well illustrated by a recent advertisement that promotes a new form of

learning for the commercial enterprise:

M o v e ahead faster with e-Learning. e-Learning: It's how you build a smart force. In today's Internet economy, the single biggest competitive advantage is a well-trained work force. A knowledge-force. A smart force. Because people are the infrastructure upon which market dominating enterprises are built. And knowledge is the currency of the future. Introducing SmartForce™ e-Learning. Like e-Business, SmartForce e-Learning is total reinvention. Not just a better mouse-trap. 14 types of learning events in a single, web-linked environment. Personalised by each learner. Customised by each company. The total integration of multimedia, instructor-led, and real-time training. In a human, collaborative community. e-Learning is easy to manage. Fun to use. And as current and available as the Internet. (SmartForce, 1999:10).

1-23

In this example, a new software development tool is marketed as providing all the

necessary features and benefits to enable a corporation to embark on on-line (internet

based) learning, without the need for specific technical skills. A n organisation might be

attracted by such optimism, but m y experience has witnessed a different reality - one

where such visions are only achieved through identifying a need for such an

intervention, careful planning and an appropriate mix of personnel.

Nevertheless, computer-based technology does provide a set of unique features that, if

applied carefully and appropriately to an educational environment, can support effective

skill development. While technology continues to evolve, it will be the challenge of the

educational sector to refine and develop the ways in which that technology can be

successfully applied to learning activities. This is well demonstrated by the changing

methods employed in universities to take advantage of internet communications. As

learners in technologically advanced countries make more and more use of the

computer facilities, maximising the effectiveness of these encounters will be paramount.

Implementation options

The understanding of interactivity can also be affected by the various ways in which the

technology can been applied to learning. Using the dimensions of Taylor (1980), three

clear examples can be identified for educational technology - the computer as tutor,

tool, or tutee. The computer as tutor will see material being presented to the learner, and

the learner required to demonstrate understanding of the material through questions and

answers, manipulation or testing. With the computer as tool, the learner may be

undertaking one or more educational activities in which the computer is used for tasks

such as data storage and analysis, information retrieval or design. Where the computer

takes on the tutee function, there is intent and potential for a more dynamic relationship

between learner and teacher. In this case, the computer may be set up to "learn" new

information by which subsequent instructional decisions can be made.

A more recent analysis by Schwier & Misanchuk (1993) provides a classification that

can be used to determine the methods by which learners approach their computer-based

education experience as well as the potential for including effective interactive events.

The classification consists of three attributes of the educational environment, which are

reviewed briefly in the following discussion.

1-24

Prescriptive

In the prescriptive mode, the learning material is defined or prescribed by the instructor

with the assumption that the learner must proceed through a series of pre-defined steps,

often linked to learning objectives, in order to complete an instructional component.

Exemplars of the prescriptive mode of education, according to Schwier & Misanchuk,

(1993) are the Drill & Practice, Tutorial, Instructional G a m e and Simulation formats. In

these cases, the concept of control is almost exclusively with the instructor or teacher

and the variation in individual differences in learners might be catered for through

access to content depending on performance. The issue of control is inherently linked to

the concept of interactivity, as the prescriptive nature of the process will limit the type

of feedback and response received by the learner.

Democratic

As an alternative to the prescriptive environment, the democratic condition is one where

"structured learning strategies are not imposed on the learner ... permitting the learner

to influence what is learned, or h o w it is learned, or at least the order in which it is

learned" (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993:23). Examples of the democratic environment

include information repositories and hypermedia applications through which the learner

can browse, depending on their particular and current needs.

This state of user or learner control introduces the concept of a more open form of

interactivity in which the learner receives responses based on their particular location in

an electronic database, rather than their location in a pre-defined course. However, this

form of interactivity does not necessarily enhance the learning process, as the learner

constantly has to determine whether the material chosen is relevant to their specific

interests. While assigning this level of freedom to the learner, there is no attempt to

provide interactive learning options once the information goal has been reached.

Cybernetic

From the perspective of Schwier & Misanchuk (1993), the ultimate form of C E L will be

that presented by cybernetic environments which embody elements of artificial

intelligence through expert systems and heuristics. The development of computer

systems which attempt to mimic the reality of the natural environment, such that

interactions appear to be similar to those which might be undertaken with people, are

1-25

very much in their infancy. However, it is important to note that with the human-

computer interaction, the computer is providing no body-language or other cues to assist

with the user's understanding of what is being presented. The sole interaction is with the

material being presented and it is h o w the learner perceives that presentation and

processes the various media elements displayed which will determine the ultimate

success of the interactivity.

Audience characteristics

Another factor critical to understanding interactivity is the learner's distinguishing

characteristics. The adult or post-secondary learner can have quite different motivations

and demands than those demonstrated by younger learners. Knowles (1990) emphasises

the importance of an adult's personal goals in choosing to learn compared to younger

learners w h o are in the process of acquiring knowledge, skills and abilities. The

different levels of experience, motivation and knowledge will impact the design of

human-computer interactions, the means individuals use to interact with the content and

the effect on the overall learning process. In addition to these developmental factors,

attributes relating to culture, gender and literacy are inextricably bound up with the

interactive experience.

Another facet of the audience is the form of interaction in which they can participate.

Moore (1989) distinguishes three types of interaction: learner-content, learner-instructor

and learner-learner. A n additional interaction, that of learner-interface, is suggested by

Hillman, Willis & Gunawardena (1994). While these were presented in the context of

distance education, they provide a useful model by which the interactivity between

learners and computers can be considered. There is clearly distance between the

designer of the educational software and the learner w h o experiences it, which Moore

(1991:2) labels the transactional distance - "the physical separation that leads to a

psychological and communications gap, a space of potential misunderstanding between

the inputs of the instructor and those of the learner". If, as Wagner (1994) suggests,

these interactions can change learners and move them toward achieving goals, what

barriers are imposed by this transactional distance where the learner is working with

computer-based content?

1-26

Learning environments

The benefits perceived with computer-based educational applications can be classified

according to both the educational environment and the technology. The educational

environment encompasses the range from formal schooling (kindergarten to year 12) to

tertiary education and continuing to job skill training in the workplace. In the school,

technology has often succeeded where it has been used as a tool to support the teaching

and learning process, with little evidence of the success of computers as a surrogate

teacher. In the university sector, technology plays a significant role in research and

teaching, although largely as a support mechanism. In Australia there has been

significant government support for the development of computer-based teaching

resources in universities. However, there is evidence that many of the funded projects

did not achieve their objectives (Alexander & MacKenzie, 1998) from the perspective

of project planning, product capabilities or learning outcomes.

In the business sector the scenario is quite different, as many projects have been funded

on a cost-justification basis. In simple terms, if an organisation can measure the costs

associated with traditional (trainer-classroom) delivery of training and compare them

with the development of a computer-based module covering the same content, it is

relatively simple to determine which is the cheaper. In many cases, organisations have

been able to identify traditional costs for a three-year period in the order of $1,000,000

and comparable technology-based training at $100,000; when expressed in financial

terms, the savings represent the rationale for C E L as a training solution. However, one

area which has received little attention is the effectiveness of such programs: granted

the technology-based solution will demonstrate a return on investment, but at what cost

in terms of quality of job performance?

Design protocols

In parallel with the development of technology has been the consolidation of design

theories associated with the development of instructional materials. W h e n computers

were first being introduced as instructional tools, Instructional Design techniques such

as those introduced by Gagne, Briggs & Wager (1988) and Dick & Carey (1990) were

in vogue. These techniques conformed to the behavioural approach to teaching,

focusing on instruction as the delivery of knowledge, and were the basis for the

structure of many computer-based learning applications.

1-27

Over the last twenty-five years the dominant educational philosophy has evolved from a

behavioural (instructivist) to a cognitive (constructivist) paradigm such that the locus of

control has been transferred from the teacher to the learner. While this cannot be

generalised, it does confirm that educational approaches are dynamic and ever

changing. Similarly, it is also argued (for example Jonassen, 1996) that the computer is

more effective as a tool than a teacher and thus the application of instructional strategies

will not be as effective. At the same time, the interactions associated with an

instructional approach can be quite different from those in a constructivist approach.

Jonassen & Tessmer (1996) provide an extensive prescription of instructional strategies

and learning activities linked to desired outcomes, which if applied by C E L developers

would create a much wider range of presentation styles. However, as will be

demonstrated in the following section on research, consistent results are yet to be

achieved with C E L implementations. This is another reason to examine the human-

computer interaction process to determine if additional elements are required to ensure

that full advantage of the activities provided is achieved.

Development tools

One of the arguments I a m presenting in this introduction is that while technology has

advanced in terms of its capability, there has been comparatively little work undertaken

on learner-computer communication in terms of maximising the effectiveness of the

interactions. At the same time, as will be discussed below, the overall effectiveness of

C E L continues to be questioned. One of the contributing factors to this situation may

well be the development tools made available for the production of educational software

(courseware).

When CEL was originally conceptualised, the development team was designated as the

subject matter expert (SME), instructional designer (ID) and programmer - three

separate individuals or groups. The ED structured the content into a learning context

which was then programmed for delivery by computer. Implicit in this structure was the

passing of content from S M E to ED and the delivery specifications from ED to

programmer, without necessarily creating a team environment in which arising issues

could be discussed. The scenario of the ID having little knowledge of software

development procedures or computer capabilities, and the programmer little notion of

1-28

instructional strategy, was quite possible. There is evidence to suggest that this barrier

between education and technology continues to the present day (McNaught, 1999).

Recognising the problems with this condition, software manufactures created

development tools known as authoring systems designed specifically for educators to

create their o w n courseware, without requiring the knowledge or resources of a

programmer. However, the structure of these tools was often so restrictive that the

courseware created did not include the type of interactions that would be effective in the

learning situation. Unless the developer also had some programming expertise, the

products often resembled little more than electronic books.

Nevertheless, the power of the computer is in its ability to process data quickly and to

interpret instructions resulting from the execution of computer programs. In particular,

the ability to conditionally process information is one of its major functions. Unless

strategies are maintained to ensure an effective dialogue between instructional designer

and programmer, the quality of the resulting product will likely be degraded in terms of

its interactivity and effectiveness as a learning tool.

While contemporary tools are becoming more complex, and therefore more open to the

development of more complex applications, from m y observation of a range of C D -

R O M and web-based applications1, too many continue to demonstrate glitz rather than

quality, reinforcing the need for additional skills in the design process. What is often

presented is evidence of skills in animation and web-based delivery, but the underlying

content continues to be presented as if in a textbook, occasionally enhanced by

multimedia elements.

Interactivity is a product not only of the software development tools but also the

learning strategy devised by the teacher or instructional designer. However, one element

often missing is the creation of materials in which the learner is conceived not as a

passive observer or remote manipulator but as an active experimenter, controller and

creator of learning materials. The extent to which the current theory and research

approaches this option is considered in the following sections.

These applications were submitted to the 1998 and 1999 ASCILITE Awards, an annual competition conducted by the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). During this period I was convenor of the judging panel and was privy to the documentation, products, judging process and selection of award winners.

1-29

Theoretical Factors

The theoretical base for computer-based education has its foundation in educational

psychology and learning theory. In many instances it would appear that the novelty of

technology as a teaching tool, and the overall naivety of the development team, have

meant a mismatch between the mode of application developed and the learning for

which it was designed. There have been many prescriptive design theories that state the

type of activity which might be undertaken to support a particular learning objective;

however, there have been few prescriptions or recommendations for the development of

interactive human-computer communication systems to support that design.

Alessi & Trollip (1991) identify eight elements from the domain of cognitive

psychology, which have a significant impact on the creation of C E L applications. The

following summary assesses the extent to which these elements impact on the ways in

which interactivity is used.

Perception and Attention

The ways in which the learner perceives the material presented on screen and maintains

their attention (engagement) with that content is critical, as there is an initial interaction

based on the way in which the user views the content (related to Gagne's (1985)

condition of learning of Gaining Attention). The initial presentation and layout of both

content material and supplementary controls will impact the way in which the learner

continues to interact with the learning material. Recent advances in information design

and interaction design (Shedroff, 1994) have done much to address the issue of

presentation. However, the underlying assumptions that propose that good screen and

interface design will translate to effective learning experiences, have yet to be firmly

established with respect to consistency and interactivity. It would appear therefore that

more attention needs to be applied to the ways in which a learner can maintain an

appropriate level of attention during their encounter with a C E L application.

Memory

It is memory that is used to extract information and knowledge in order to recall a

process or perform a skill. H o w this information and knowledge is stored is beyond the

scope of this study, however research such as that undertaken by Craik & Lockhart

(1972) have demonstrated that different strategies will effect whether deep or surface

1-30

learning occurs. It is argued that the structure of interactions will influence the way in

which content material is processed and subsequently stored for future reference. More

importantly, the learner's ability to engage with these interactions will also be critical in

determining the depth of learning.

Comprehension

Alessi &Trollip (1991:12) suggest that "the type of learning desired must determine the

type of presentation and activities of a lesson". This demonstrates that the matching of

learning outcome with the presentation of content and the related interactions

(activities) are significant factors in the generation of meaning or comprehension from a

computer-based application. This notion is covered in extensive detail by Jonassen &

Tessmer (1996) in a detailed taxonomy of instructional strategies and associated

learning outcomes. The extent to which a learner can interpret the material compared to

their comprehension and application of that material is the significant aspect of CEL.

Whereas group-learning environments facilitate other people being used to provide

input to problem solving, an independent learner does not necessarily have those

resources and comprehension may therefore be limited.

Learning

H o w w e learn has been the subject of ongoing research for centuries. The developments

in an understanding of learning are intermixed with socio-cultural conditions.

Underlying much of contemporary thinking is that w e learn by doing, and this

interaction "not only maintains attention but creates and stores new knowledge and

skills" (Alessi & Trollip, 1991:12). Trilling & Hood (1999) propose five elements of

modern learning theory: Context (environmental learning), Construction (mental model

building), Caring (intrinsic motivation), Competence (multiple intelligences) and

Community (learning communities of practice). Other approaches, such as the

preliminary specification of Engagement Theory (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1999),

provide a context by which interactivity can be assessed. Is the doing of answering

questions sufficient to demonstrate an interactive environment in which learning will

occur? Chapter 2: The Conditions of Interactivity provides a more detailed analysis of

the implications for interactive environments as a consequence of approaches to

learning.

1-31

Motivation

The motivation of an individual student to undertake a learning activity is paramount to

its ultimate success, although the teacher also has a role to elicit that motivation.

Malone & Lepper (1987) proposed that challenge, curiosity, control and fantasy are four

elements which can elicit motivation and while these are independent of a computer

environment, there is no reason why a computer application designed for learning

activities cannot provide such choices. From a different perspective, Keller & Suzuki

(1988) determined that maintenance of attention, relevance of material, student

confidence and student satisfaction are also essential for motivation. Comparing these

two options it is interesting to note that while Malone & Lepper (1987) focus

exclusively on the factors required for a learner to be motivated, those of Keller &

Suziki (1988) include an element of instructor influence on the presence of motivation.

This reinforces one of the major dilemmas in Computer-Based Learning - should the

instructor be the sole designer or can the learner also provide a significant level of

input? For interactivity, the question arises as to h o w a computer program might

provide interactive experiences to enhance an individual's motivation.

Locus of Control

This latter comment links to where Locus of Control is situated - with the program or

with the learner. The creation of control is largely a function of the particular

educational philosophy adopted by the design team and depending on their access to

research data will impact the way in which interactions are included within the

application. Santiago & Okey (1992:52) conclude that:

it is the use of information more than the use of options ... that could be considered as the more immediate concern of designers of CBI when dealing with locus of control orientation of learners.

This is particularly important as the level to which the learner is able to feel in control

of the learning process will partly determine their motivation to continue working with

the material.

Transfer of Learning

One of the goals of learning is that the knowledge and skills considered in the

application will be transferred to another specific performance area or even generalised

1-32

to a range of similar skill applications. B y implementing interactions that enable transfer

of learning, it is argued that more successful use of the technology will result.

Individual Differences

Another critical element is that students all approach the learning environment with a

range of cultural, social and motivational characteristics. While educational

environments to date have not always catered for these differences, there is

acknowledgment that different tasks should be provided depending on a learner's

unmediate abilities and background. For this reason schools have implemented

accelerated and remedial programs for selected students. However, computer

technology is not as sophisticated to be able to identify the specific learning

characteristics of an individual and consequently many of the applications produced

have not been able to demonstrate functions enabling adaptation to individual needs.

Nevertheless, the use of a range of interactive experiences, optionally generated by

learner specifications, may provide a method by which individual differences are at

least considered as a component of any C E L application.

How and why we learn is influenced by a complex set of social, economic, personal and

cultural factors (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993). The application of computer technology

to the learning process must not only take these aspects into account but also assess how

computer-presented information and tools might facilitate that process.

Research outcomes

Over the past 30 years there have been many thousands of research studies examining a

range of factors associated with the application of computer technology to teaching and

learning. These can be classified into case studies, empirical research and meta­

analyses.

The case studies typically examine a complete software (courseware) application and

describe its features and implementation characteristics, but rarely focuses on any

failures or inadequacies. A recent Australian project (Alexander & Mckenzie, 1998)

examined a range of projects which had been sponsored by Federal Government

funding and concluded that outcomes were often not achieved because of naive

expectations or inadequate evaluation protocols. Determining the extent to which the

1-33

interactive elements contributed to the success of these types of application will lead to

a better understanding of the importance of this construct. While many case studies

have been presented as exemplars of good practice, the diversity of learning

environments means that successful applications in one situation may not be as effective

in others. Developing a better understanding of learner-computer interactivity m a y help

in developing models of implementation that can be applied across learning sectors.

Research studies have frequently examined a discrete domain area and assessed the

benefits of using computer technology in terms of comparative and learner control

factors. The comparative studies, where traditional delivery has been matched with

computer-based delivery have produced a wide range of findings that have been the

subject of rigorous debate (Clarke, 1983; Kozma, 1991). M y perception is that success

will come not from replication of materials but from invention of more effective

learning resources. The use of learner control over variables such as content and

sequence has received perhaps the greatest percentage of research attention, although

the validity of the findings has been criticised by Reeves (1993). While providing the

learner with control is clearly critical in terms of their making selections or decisions,

control from the program's perspective is also useful if the learner's performance is

analysed as requiring intervention. Rather than control being considered from a binary

Y E S : N O perspective, it may better be implemented if considered in terms of human-

human communication.

The meta-analyses have examined a range of research studies to assess the overall

effectiveness of using computer-based technology in education and training. Overall,

these analyses have failed to show any consistent evidence of significant benefits of

using such technology (Kulik et al, 1983; Russell, 1999).

One of the conclusions that can be generated from this overview is that much is still to

be learned about the user's response to technology and how people deal with an

environment which is intrinsically different from the traditional modes of information

presentation and access.

Summary

The ability of computers to respond provides an environment in which humans can

operate in an interactive manner. The development of the field and the perceived

1-34

benefits of interactivity are closely tied to theoretical, design and development issues.

However, research has also continued to be inconclusive. It is therefore valuable to

identify those contemporary contributions that may assist developing a new or different

interpretation of the ways in which the interactive experience might be enhanced to

maximise the likelihood of the learning outcomes being achieved.

Kearsley (1977:8) commented that "CAI is well beyond the feasibility stage of

demonstrating that it works and should be seriously concerned with h o w to improve the

product" which was also echoed by Reeves (1999). W e continue to maintain that w e

know h o w to use Computer Enhanced Learning applications, but acknowledge there is

still much to learn about making the technology work better. This environment is partly

responsible for the direction taken by this thesis - to examine interactivity to provide

new insights and partial solutions to the challenge to make it work better. It may well be

that these insights come from new ways of looking at the human-computer relationship

such as those introduced in the following section, rather than emphasising the variables

which impact learning.

CONTEMPORARY POSITIONS

The factors that impact the effectiveness of the interactive learning experience are

diverse, complex and dynamic. The technology continues to develop at an astounding

rate, providing new opportunities for educational innovation. The strategies for

designing, and the techniques for developing, courseware applications are changing as a

result of both technology and theory. The ways in which people teach and leam are

evolving as a result of social, cultural and economic changes. Our understanding of the

overall learning process is also developing. At the same time, research is continuing to

report ambivalent results on the effectiveness of computer based learning.

Within this dynamic and changing environment the interactive experience is not being

realised. Perhaps if the concept of working interactively in computer-based

environments is considered from a different perspective, the way in which interactive

experiences are implemented may become more independent from technology, theory

and practice. If w e can better understand the process of human-computer interaction in

the learning context then these changes can take place without necessarily affecting the

interactive process.

1-35

The following analysis introduces three possible candidates, which will be elaborated in

Chapter 3: The Practice of Interactivity, and identifies the ways in which they might

enhance the interactive experience.

Computers as theatre

Laurel (1991) introduced the concept of computers as theatre in which the theatre is

used as a metaphor for understanding the human-computer relationship. This has been

adopted by a number of developers, especially in the context of interactive narrative

(Barrett & Redmond, 1995; Murray, 1997). While focusing on human-computer

interaction in relation to information processing applications, the implications for C E L

products are equally intriguing. If the courseware is constructed as a play, what role

does the learner take - one of audience or actor - and if the latter, what form of actor:

improviser, performer or under-study? Given the challenge to make C E L work better,

such considerations deserve attention.

Narrative, play and interactivity

A second aspect related to theatre is that of narrative, and the way in which the learner

interprets the story embedded within the courseware. With specific reference to

educational applications, Plowman (1996a) examined the ways in which children

explored interactive videodisk products, determining that those where narrative was

evident provided a better learning experience. In m y experience with the development

of courseware applications for training environments, while attempts have been made to

engage the learner as active observer, the notion of giving the learner a specific role to

play, or script to follow, was not explicitly considered. The reconstruction of the

learner's role in C E L environments appears to be a relevant factor in working towards

making it work better.

The magic of software

Tognazzini (1999) proposes a different approach whereby the characteristics of the

magician are assessed in terms of making the human-computer interface more

accessible. In representing the magic act as 9 0 % performance and 1 0 % skill, it is

suggested that more focus be placed on the illusions that can be presented to the user to

maximise the effectiveness of the application. Translated to the learning environment,

1-36

this suggests a role for the designer as one of magician presenting a performance, with

the learner taking the role of audience or assistant to not only passively observe but

actually experience the magic!

CONCLUSIONS

Interactivity, as an implicit component of computer technology, continues to be

perceived as a viable means of communication (Kristof & Satran, 1995:121):

In the end, interactivity is people using new media to communicate ideas, knowledge, and art in much the same way that people have always communicated. The core of good interactive communication is still a strong message and a clear presentation. The design process still calls for research, creativity, and skilful execution. The one new variable is the element of audience choice. And choice can take users in unpredictable directions and combine elements of the design in unpredictable ways. That's why interactivity calls for a greater commitment to planning, to useability, and to making the pieces work together than communication has ever demanded before.

However, in the context of computer-enhanced learning, there remains a paradox

whereby interactivity does not appear to be generating the educational outcomes

predicted. The promise that computer-based interactive learning will provide a range of

benefits to the overall learning process has not been consistently realised.

To develop a better understanding of the state-of-the-art of interactivity, a research

question is proposed to reassess the extent to which people have understood the promise

of interactivity:

What expectations do people have from interactive learning

environments?

To develop the issues raised by this question, the following chapter examines the

significant disciplines in the field that have contributed to the practice of computer-

enhanced learning and the consequent impact on implementations of interactivity. The

outcome of this discussion provides the rationale for the statement of the second

research question and sets the scene for continuing the analysis of interactivity.

CHAPTER 2:

THE CONDITIONS OF INTERACTIVITY

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 established a case for interactivity being a promise not yet fully realised. This

chapter expands on those issues by exploring the major disciplinary factors provided

through the literature that have informed the practice of computer-based learning with

specific respect to the provision of a set of conditions for interactivity.

This analysis of interactivity is covered from five perspectives. The first analyses the

diverse range of approaches to learning to provide a context for interpreting interactivity

in the computer-based context. The second perspective is that of human-computer

interaction (HCI) and the implications for the learner and their use of computer-based

systems. Third, the issues associated with the design and development of educational

software applications are assessed in terms of the ways these activities impact the

successful implementation of interactivity to support the learning process. The fourth

perspective to be addressed is that of individualisation and the contribution of

interactivity to meeting the various needs of the individual and independent learner.

Finally, the links between human-human communication and interactivity are

introduced to focus on the ways in which people receive and interpret information.

The dynamic nature of CBE is a function of both the rapidly developing technology and

changes in teaching and learning paradigms, and this in turn impacts the conditions for

implementing effective interactive C E L environments. This setting provides the

background for Chapter 3, which focuses on the various ways in which interactivity has

come to be understood in practice and finalises the framework on which this study is

predicated.

APPROACHES TO LEARNING

Overview

This section focuses on the diversity of approaches to learning and their implications for

applying interactivity in a computer-based learning environment. The literature is

2-38

reviewed from two aspects; the first in terms of established learning theories and

paradigms and the second with respect to contemporary ideas of teaching and learning.

The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate that interactivity is not simply a feature of

all forms of computer-based learning but a multi-faceted construct who's form,

attributes and affects are conditional upon the particular educational position adopted.

Implications from Learning Theory

The study of the relationship between h o w w e learn and the interactions which support

that learning can be traced as far back into history as w e might wish to pursue.

However, if w e focus specifically on the current century, there are numerous, varied and

evolving approaches to learning which can be assessed in terms of their implications for

C E L environments and the associated interactive constructs.

Texts based generally on learning theories separate the work of behavioural, cognitive

and contemporary theorists (eg. Bower & Hilgard, 1981) and from the perspective of

educational technology, similar distinctions are made. For example, Romiszowski

(1986) acknowledges that one's particular philosophical position will influence the

structure of learning activities, differentiating the Humanist (with an emphasis on useful

content), Behaviourist (emphasising outcomes), Cognitivist and Developmental

(emphasising the process) and Cybernetic (emphasising the system) approaches. More

recently, Kearsley (1997) compiled a Theory into Practice database, documenting an

extensive range of learning theories, concepts and domains. Using this database, I

undertook a synthesis of the material, identifying the major focus of the theoretical

position, the means by which it might be implemented in a learning environment and

the likely interactive constructs that would be manifested in a C E L environment. From

this synthesis I derived four dimensions linking the prescriptions of interactivity from

the various theoretical positions,

In summary, the four major dimensions identified can be characterised by:

• Learners - the who of the learning process

• Content - the what of the learning process

• Pedagogy - the how of the learning process

• Context - the when and where of the learning process

2-39

These four dimensions provide a context by which the complex nature of interactivity

for learning in computer-based environments can be understood. More importantly, this

framework reinforces the assumptions made by early implementations of C E L that

interactivity would support learning. In presenting these dimensions, I do not wish to

suggest that learning should or can be linked to any single strategy or intervention.

Rather it is better viewed as a complex interaction between circumstances, conditions,

environment, motivation and culture. While no one theory or paradigm can explain

learning completely, these dimensions provide a framework and foundation for

considering the constructs of interactivity in the context of C E L environments.

The following discussion examines each of these dimensions, identifying the focus of

the learning prescription, the form of interactivity (in the context of computer-based

applications) that might be derived from the focus and the source of the related

theoretical position.

Interactivity and Learners

The details provided in Table 2.1 suggest ways that placing an emphasis on the learner

will influence the ways in which interactions might be created. For example, if a

developer were to subscribe to the Goal Navigation and Exploration prescriptions for

learning, then the application might be created with an emphasis on the learner making

decisions on which paths to take in order to achieve a particular (learner or designer

prescribed) goal. Alternately, designers who focused on the benefits of Scaffolding

might implement extensive and dynamic support facilities to enable the program to

adapt to the responses of individual users.

Interactivity and Content

The content or subject matter presented to users is the focus of the second dimension

which, impacts on the way interactivity and learning can be linked, as indicated in Table

2.2. While structuring of the content sequences is closely associated with the

pedagogical dimension, the level and depth of content as well as the underlying

information and presentation design is critical to the overall interactive experience.

2-40

Focus

Goal Navigation; Exploration

Making Selections

Tools

Control: to Construct or Deconstruct

Prompt for engagement Scaffolding; Modelling

Interactive Constructs

• Select navigational paths

• Retrieve appropriate content

• Move within a simulated environment

• Explore conditions of rule operation

• Compare results

• Access manageable pieces of material

• Modify content structure

• Access help or support tools

• Construct or modify properties of and/or relationships between learning objects

• Create personal narratives

• Generate original responses

• Assemble or disassemble support tools as required

• Adapt dynamic scaffolding according to individual schema

• Access exemplars to support knowledge acquisition

Related Theories

Sign Learning (Tolman, 1932); Constructivist (Bruner, 1966); Information Pick-Up (Gibson, 1966); Structural Learning (Scandura, 1973); Androgogy (Knowles, 1984); Adult Learning (Cross, 1981); Soar (Newell, 1990)

Information Processing (Miller, 1956)

Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957)

Gestalt (Wertheimer, 1959); Lateral Thinking (de Bono, 1967); Experiential (Rogers, 1969); Dual Coding (Paivio, 1986); Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972); Script (Schank, 1982); Component Display (Merrill, 1983); Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson & Coulson, 1992) Originality (Maltzman, 1960); Constructivist (Bruner, 1966); Constructivist (Bruner, 1966); Social Learning (Bandura, 1971); Script (Schank, 1982)

Table 2.1: Interactive Constructs and Learners

Focus

The more the better Essential

Engagement

Content Dependent

Multimedia

Minimalist

Interactive Constructs

• Present questions frequently

• Ensure interactions implemented

• Integrate meaningful engagement through access to different content representations

• Enable the means to control displayed media elements

• Vary structural presentation as a function of content domain

• Enable learner elaboration of epitomes

• Enable the means to select media used to display content structures

• Enabling access to and manipulation of content

• Include only necessary content

Related Theories

Connectionism (Thorndike, 1913)

Contiguity (Guthrie, 1930); Drive Reduction (Hull, 1943) Dual Coding (Paivio, 1986), Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972)

Algo-Heuristic (Landa, 1974); Component Display (Merrill, 1983); Elaboration (Reigeluth, 1992)

Symbol Systems (Salomon, 1979); Dual Coding (Paivio, 1986); Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro etal, 1992)

G O M S (Card, Moran & Newell, 1983); Minimalist (Carroll, 1990)

Table 2.2: Interactive Constructs and Content

Interactivity and Pedagogy

The pedagogical dimension is used to demonstrate that apart from the learner and

content, the way in which the material is structured and delivered will also impact the

interactivity. A s detailed in Table 2.3, the pedagogical structures associated with a C E L

2-41

application also suggest certain interactive constructs. This dimension too is critical, as

it will determine the extent to which the learner is able to move (navigate), test

(explore) and manoeuvre (self-pace) through the product. It will also focus on what

measures will represent completion; if based on a teaching (instructivist) model, then

some form of assessment might be required. If based on a learner (constructivist) model,

then completion of the task might be the measure of success. The design process must

also be extended to adapt for interactivity to maximise engagement, as the learner may

be operating in an independent environment without access to teacher support.

Focus

Vary according to learner

Question-Answer-Feedback Self-pacing

Problem Based

Interactive Constructs

• Vary as a function of developmental stage

• Vary according to individual skills

• Integrate contextual and socio-cultural elements

• Adopt a cyclic question (stimulus), answer (response) and feedback loop

• Enable learner control

• Enable self-testing of achievement (mastery)

• Enable assessment of individual success

• Enable testing and problem-solving of currently held beliefs or concepts

• Provide tools to solve problems

Related Theories C

Genetic Epistemology (Piaget, 1929); Conditions of Learning (Gagne, 1985); Subsumption (Ausubel, 1963); General Problem Solver (Newell & Simon, 1972); Androgogy (Knowles, 1984); Adult Learning (Cross, 1981); A C T (Anderson, 1990); ATI (Cronbach & Snow, 1977); Triarchic (Sternberg, 1977); Operant Conditioning (Skinner, 1950)

Mathematical (Atkinson, 1972); Criterion-Referenced (Mager, 1988)

Experiential (Rogers, 1969); General Problem Solver (Newell & Simon, 1972); Double-Loop (Argyris & Schon, 1974); Repair (Brown & Van Lehn, 1980); Mathematical Problem Solving (Schoenfeld, 1985

Table 2.3: Interactive Constructs and Pedagogy

Interactivity and Context

The fourth dimension by which learning theories and interactivity may be examined

relates to the context in which learning is undertaken, as represented in Table 2.4. In the

classroom, learning can range from the abstract to the laboratory and simulated

conditions, which can be replicated on a computer if appropriate. However, attempting

to provide a context for learning demands not only the integration of knowledge and

information into a specific situation, but also the learner being able to position

themselves in that context in order to understand the situation and purpose of that

information. For example, while a group of army specialists may be taken to a bombing

range to practice disarming explosives, recreating the same scenario on a computer is

complex because time and space constraints exist. One of the challenges therefore, if

2-42

attempting to develop a C E L environment incorporating a contextual metaphor, is to

provide learners with adequate visual cues and support tools to establish realistic and

meaningful learning experiences.

Focus

Contextual, Situated

Learning Styles

Interactive Exemplars

Enable access to people (real or simulated) to provide assistance Focus on action-consequence model

Relate contextual controls (tools) to support facilities Enable social operations

Enable learner and program adaptation strategies

Related Theories

Functional Literacy (Sticht, 1976); Social Development (Vygotsky, 1962); Symbol Systems (Salomon, 1979); Phenomenography (Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 1984); Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro et al, 1982); Situated (Lave & Wenger, 1990)

Modes of Learning (Rumelhart & Norman, 1978); Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1993)

Table 2.4: Interactive Constructs and Context

The learning theories identified above reinforce the complex and varied ways in which

the learner and learning have been conceptualised. This is well illustrated by Jonassen

& Tessmer (1996) w h o focused on the outcomes of learning and developed links with

specific instructional tactics. Their analysis derived a total of 34 learning outcomes and

86 instructional tactics within 22 categories. For example, a learning outcome to use a

procedure was classed in terms of cognitive components, measured by demonstrating

algorithms or procedures under criteria of accuracy, speed or authenticity and with an

instance of installing a butterfly valve into a carburettor. The tactics associated with this

single outcome are shown in Table 2.5 following.

Outcome

Using procedures

Tactics '-::. < ..'. . ':l ..

Comparative - relate to content familiar to learner

Present facts, concept/rule/principle definitions and attributes

Prototypical examples/demonstrations

Worked problem examples Divergent examples/demonstrations

Describe key aspects of information

Distributed practice session

Apply in real world or simulated situations (near transfer)

Corrective and remedial feedback

Correct/incorrect solution models

Deductive sequence (RULEG) Procedural, job sequence; information processing sequence (path sequencing)

Table 2.5: Learning Outcome and Instructional Tactics

2-43

In addition to the required tactics, a set of recommended tactics was also included,

further reinforcing the complexity of structuring effective learning environments. W h e n

considered in the context of C E L applications, this single example illustrates the range

of instructional activities that can extend from presentation to simulation of content and

for both passive and active learner responses. Jonassen & Tessmer (1996:23) claim that

"learning taxonomies embedded in classical instructional design models do not

adequately address important outcomes and requirements of newer, more constructivist

environments". While interactivity can be ascribed to the many different approaches to

learning, as theories develop and evolve, so must our approach to structures of

interactivity within the C E L environment.

Contemporary Considerations

Understanding h o w people learn in the contemporary context is also critical, as the

ever-changing social and cultural environments in which w e live impact on both the

delivery of education and our concept of the learner. As I write, the tertiary education

environment in Australia is heavily committed to the use of web-based or on-line

learning activities, resulting from a combination of reasons such as the current

economic climate and a better understanding of the way in which post-secondary adults

choose to learn. In the context of CEL, if its promise is to be realised then the

environment provided for the learner becomes a significant factor, not only in terms of

the conceptualisation and structure of the content material but also with respect to the

design strategies implemented. This is well illustrated by Trilling & Hood (1999:8),

who describe seven contributing factors pertinent to learning in the knowledge age:

• Critical Thinking and Doing - problem-solving, research, analysis and project

management.

This focus on the individual and independent learner suggests that any interactive

constructs must enable the learner to operate in a problem-based environment with

appropriate resources to be in control of the direction of their learning activities.

e Creativity - new knowledge creation, 'best fit' design solutions and artful

storytelling.

This factor points to the learner as a creative individual, and learning activities

should take advantage of this. Enabling the learner to define their o w n objectives

2-44

will assist in the way their education is provided. The use of concepts of narrative

and storytelling might also enhance the way content is received by the learner.

• Collaboration - cooperation, compromise, consensus and community-building.

The notion of on-line learning communities is now commonplace and well

facilitated by internet structures (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). While a C E L environment

tends to be aimed at an independent learner, there are few, if any, technical barriers

to prevent an individual's responses and solutions being used to inform other users

of the product.

• Cross-cultural Understanding - across diverse ethnic, knowledge and

organisational cultures.

This element is receiving particular focus in the computer-based learning field (for

example, IFETS, 1999). Developing educational resources and delivering them to an

entire population could be perceived as disregarding the complexity of

characteristics (gender, cultural) of which that population consists. Appreciating the

individual's contribution to learning and the meanings they impart onto the content

is one way of addressing these issues.

• Communication - crafting messages and using media effectively.

A major focus of this thesis is related to better understanding the ways in which we

can communicate with people, through computer technology, in a learning context.

Our understanding of communication is changing and placing more emphasis on the

individual meanings ascribed to messages. The challenge for developing educational

software products is to enable those meanings to be an integral component of the

learning process.

• Computing - effective use of electronic information and knowledge tools.

As discussed previously, many tertiary institutions are relying on computer

technology to support on-line teaching and learning initiatives. This places an

increasing burden on the user to make effective use of this technology, from both

the designer's and the learner's perspective.

2-45

• Career & Learning Self-reliance - managing change, lifelong learning and

career redefinition.

This factor suggests that enabling the learner to cope within such a dynamic world is

one of the challenges for education. Within the micro-world of CEL, the learner can

also be given the opportunity to take control of their world and develop better

understandings of their current and potential contributions to their environment.

Overall, these seven factors reinforce the extent to which the focus of education is

moving towards h o w the learner is participating in the learning process, and highlights

the importance of situated and contextual learning approaches - those where the learner

is operating in a familiar and relevant environment. If developing C E L applications, the

conditions of interactivity are influenced not only by the particular learning approach

but also by the overall environment in which the learner is operating.

With respect to the training environment specifically, Landamatics (Educational

Technology, 1993) is one which places emphasis not only on the knowledge to be

learned but also the strategies used by learners in interpreting that knowledge. With

specific reference to the corporate training, Landa comments:

Companies' complaints... are typically the same: the training time is too long and, more importantly, upon completion of training novices cannot do the job as required. The error rate is high, the pace of performing tasks (productivity) is low, the ability to make decisions - and their quality - is poor ... the cause of problems is often not the lack of substantive knowledge but the lack of operational knowledge, i.e. the lack of knowledge as to what to mentally do with the knowledge in order to successfully solve problems and make decisions (Educational Technology 1993:10).

While this comment may have been designed to enhance business prospects, it

nevertheless highlights the perceived need to change focus from the content to the

learner - from h o w w e structure and present material to the way in which it is

interpreted, understood and applied by the learner. This is supported by a study of

authenticity in the learning environment (Shaffer & Resnick, 1999), where learning can

be conceived as being personally meaningful and related to the real world outside the

school environment. In addition, this notion of authenticity provides an opportunity to

think in the modes of a particular discipline and where the means of assessment reflect

the learning process.

2-46

These latter examples again highlight the changes that occur in approaches to learning,

and emphasise the importance of assessing the impact of these changes on the ways

interactivity might be applied. The study of learning and computers cannot be

considered the subject of a static set of assumptions and prescriptions, but as a dynamic

and complex set of interconnected variables positioned within the context of

contemporary thinking and practice (Wilson, 1999).

HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

Overview

The study of human-computer interaction (HC1) is itself a diverse field, examining

factors such as the user, interface, mental models, adaptation, experience and useability

(for example, Booth, 1989; Ackerman & Tauber, 1990; Laurel, 1990; Preece, 1994;

Pemberton, 1997). The study of the communication between human and computer is

focused on the relationship between what the computer and user do and the subsequent

interpretation or action. Although the H C I focus tends to be on the completion of

successful operations rather than the provision of a learning environment, there is a

similar focus on the communication that takes place between user and computer. Dix,

Finlay, Abowd, & Beale (1993:44) express this aspect succinctly:

W e should be aware of individual differences so that w e can account for them as far as possible within our designs. These differences may be long term, such as sex, physical capabilities and intellectual capabilities. Others are shorter term and include the effect of stress or fatigue on the user. Still others change through time such as age.

This emphasis on individualisation as a critical factor in the implementation of

interactive dialogue between computer and human is also a function of the extent to

which the interface effectively translates the actions of user and system (Dix et al,

1993). This also highlights a second element of the interaction process, the interface,

which refers to the environment presented on the computer display to which the user

must react, respond, interpret and communicate. H o w people understand and

conceptualise human-computer operations is likely therefore to impact on the way

computer-based systems are designed and developed for learning.

2-47

Generic Approaches to HCI

Human-computer interaction has been considered from a range of perspectives, such as

Eberts (1994), who identifies four alternative approaches to human-computer

interaction:

• Empirical - where the computer system is querying the user and the design of

the interface will depend on experimental results.

In this instance, data provided by the user (or learner) can be used to modify the

interface. As will be discussed in Chapter 8, this is typically achieved through

maintenance and revision activities after the human-computer contact has

completed. However, it will also be considered whether this might become more a

dynamic function of human-computer interactions.

• Cognitive - where the aim is to make the processing of information by the

computer and human more efficient.

Consistent with the comments made above, this approach also "views the human as

an adaptive, flexible and actively involved in interacting with the environment to

solve problems or make decisions" (Eberts, 1994:50). If human-computer interaction

is about problems to be solved, then the role of the problem-solving theories of

cognitive psychology become relevant to C E L design and development.

• Predictive modelling - where the performance of humans interacting with

computers is predicted.

Related also to the comments for the Empirical approach, this option will enable

more efficient interfaces to be implemented. It also is consistent with the means by

which adaptive systems (as discussed later in this Chapter) can be applied to

computer-based educational environments.

• Anthropomorphic - where "the designer uses the process of human-human

communication as a model for human-computer interaction" (Eberts, 1994:55).

The extent to which this can be achieved is a major focus for this study and some of

the implications in the C E L environment are considered through the work of Kirsch

(1997) and Bardini (1997) as presented in Chapter 3.

2-48

The Execution-Evaluation Cycle

Given these approaches, it is also valuable to examine some of the specific elements of

a human-computer interaction, to extend the means by which these may also link to

better understanding interactivity in the context of CEL. With reference to developing

an understanding of individualisation and the interface, Norman (1986) introduced the

concept of the Execution-Evaluation Cycle that describes an interaction in terms of the

goals and actions of the user. As interpreted by. Dix et al (1993:92):

The purpose of an interactive system is to aid a user in accomplishing goals from some application domain. A domain defines an area of expertise and knowledge in some real-world activity ... Tasks are operations to manipulate the concepts of a domain. A goal is the desired output from a performed task ... A n intention is a specific action required to meet the goal.

In developing the concept of the Execution-Evaluation cycle, Norman (1986) identified

seven stages that succinctly integrate both the program and user elements of the

interactive process. The following provides an overview of these stages, and identifies

their potential relationship with interactive learning environments.

• Establishing the goal - where both the program and the user must reach some

for of agreement as the goal of the interaction.

In educational terms this could be described in terms of program stating the learning

objective or outcome. However, it also suggests through the word agreement the

need for some level of negotiation. The extent to which the learner might be in a

position to work towards such an agreement is consistent with the Empirical

approach identified by Eberts (1994) and is further explored in Chapter 8.

• Forming the intention - which refers to the decisions being made to achieve the

goal.

In a learning application this places emphasis on the user to take a controlling role in

how that goal is achieved and the program to be responsive to the directions a user

wishes to travel.

2-49

• Specifying the action sequence - whereby the user must come to understand

what activities must be performed to achieve the goal.

In educational terms this can involve a range of activities including responses

associated with navigation, support or assistance and task engagement.

• Executing the action - where the user performs some psychomotor task in order

to progress the process.

In terms of C E L applications, the association between the overt actions and the

intrinsic engagement with the content material is the critical element of the complete

interaction.

• Perceiving the system state - which relates to those effects the action has on the

information being displayed, initiating at least visual responses and subsequent

perception on the impact of the action performed.

Within a learning context this has specific significance as it represents the feedback

provided to the user. This can range from a confirmation that a particular action has

been successful to a reconstruction of screen elements to provide an indication of

progress on a task, as identified by Hannafin (1989).

• Interpreting the system state - whereby the user must determine whether their

action has helped attain the original goal.

Within the interactive C E L environment, this interpretation provides the user with

an opportunity to assess whether or not their actions have assisted goal acquisition,

as detailed in the following stage.

• Evaluating the system state with respect to goals and intentions - to determine

the extent to which the overall learning process has progressed.

While Norman's (1986) analysis was focused on the use of applications software, in

the learning context the effect relates to both the micro aspects of a single execution

as well as the macro aspects of the overall learning program.

Although these stages focus specifically on human-computer interactions with

applications software, they do not fully cater for the complex set of interactions that

2-50

take place when the activity is associated with a learning task. Norman (1987:329)

commented that:

Yes, each of the seven stages corresponds to some subfield of psychology ... But this analysis of stages of action still misses much of the complexity of real behaviour. What about interruptions? What about social demands?

This observation highlights the need to address additional facets of the interactive

process, such as those identified by Plowman (1996a) in terms of the foci of

interactivity and their potential to interfere with the flow.

The interpretation of these Execution-Evaluation stages into the links between user and

computer were expressed in terms of a gulf between user and computer which had to be

spanned by two "bridges", addressing issues from both the user and computer position

(Norman, 1986). In explaining these gulfs, Dix et al (1993:94) observe:

The gulf of execution ... refers to the difference between the user's formulation of the actions to reach the goal, and the actions allowed by the system. If the actions allowed by the system correspond to those intended by the user, the interaction will be effective. The interface should therefore aim to reduce this gulf. Van gulf of evaluation is the distance between the physical presentation of the system state and the expectation of the user. If the user can readily evaluate the presentation in terms of his goal, the gulf of evaluation is small. The more effort that is required on the part of the user to interpret the presentation, the less effective the interaction.

Given that the individual will have their own particular understanding of the way in

which the computer system operates, and their role and options within that

understanding, being unable to perform an action simply when attempting to achieve a

goal will impact on the successful completion of the interaction. Similarly, if the

information presented to the user is inconsistent with their interpretation or evaluation,

then achieving the goal may also be problematic. If the proposed gulfs can be

eliminated, or at least minimised, through a combination of appropriate interface and

low effort, then a successful interaction is likely. In the context of learning, this suggests

that any manifestation of either execution or evaluation gulfs will potentially interfere

with the overall learning process. Ensuring the design process addresses these gulfs is

therefore a pre-requisite for the successful implementation of CEL.

As computer systems develop, it is becoming apparent that one goal is to use the

technology in such a way that it enhances human-human communication in contrast to

operating as a substitute human. This is currently of critical interest as many

organisations are turning to web-based applications to enhance learning and training

2-51

opportunities. However, the introduction of these innovations has the potential to

confront the user with the very gulfs identified by Norman (1986). For example, at

Southern Cross University (where I a m employed) a trial on-line learning course

adopted the Lotus™ Learning Space® product as a template for delivery and

communication. One of the initial problems encountered was not the enthusiasm of the

teachers and students, but an inability to understand the computer-based operations,

such as saving files (Carroll, 1999). It was not Learning Space® that was problematic,

but the ability of the users to adapt to the technical requirements for operation.

So while the focus of collaborative work is on the group, the level of expertise of the

individual members together will influence the actual success of that group. As

expressed by Preece (1994:62):

Instead of conceptualising an individual's cognitive tasks when interacting with an individual computer, the distributed cognition approach attempts to characterise the computer-mediated, cognitive activities of a group of people working together in a given setting.

And where this expertise is insufficient to effectively operate the system in terms of the

tasks required to participate in the group activities, the collaborative experience will be

denigrated, at least for some of the members.

Interaction Styles

In addition to the issues associated with resolving the potential gulfs or conflicts

between execution and evaluation, the study of human-computer interaction has also

focused on the different physical interactions possible. From the perspective of

applications software, the tasks undertaken by users are contextually different from

those typically used within learning applications.

Using the interactive tasks classified by Shneiderman (1993), which included reference

to the skill levels required to complete these tasks, provides an additional perspective on

interactivity. The combination of task and experience level may impact on the outcome

of the interaction, and specifically from a learning perspective, affect the achievement

of learning goals. The following discussion examines h o w this assessment can be linked

to better understanding interactivity for CEL.

2-52

• Menu Selection - the novice or intermittent user is required to read from a list

and select an item appropriate to the task. The system must then apply syntax to

indicate selection, confirm the choice and initiate an action. Finally the user can

observe the effect.

In the computer-based educational environment, this form is manifested in the

selection of content topics and was recognised as a foundational element of

interactivity (Milheim, 1990).

• Form Fillin - requires a user to enter data in desired fields, typified by

commercial financial or insurance transactions. Shneiderman (1993) suggests

this task is suitable for knowledgeable intermittent users or frequent users.

With respect to C E L environments, the development of interactions that are

provided only to users with some level of experience, that is interactions presented

only when the user can be classified as knowledgeable, is the realm of adaptive and

intelligent systems, as discussed later in this chapter. However, if this activity is

important to completion of the task and a novice user is operating the system, the

challenge then is to provide a means by which their experience can be enhanced.

• Command Language - provides locus of control and initiative for frequent users;

error rates are high, training is required, retention is poor; designed for expert

frequent users.

While the frequent user may be able to use such commands, in a learning context the

likelihood of errors would conflict with the learning sequence. This may also link to

the concepts of cognitive load (Chandler & Sweller, 1991) and the impact of

complex interactions on successful learning.

• Natural Language - providing little context for the next command and requires a

clarification dialogue.

This remains one of the complex elements to achieve in C E L environments,

especially if the development team has more of an educational rather than computer

programming background. However, the notion of dialogue (communication or

conversation) being enabled between application and learner is considered in detail

in the data analysis sections of this study.

2-53

• Direct Manipulation - visual representations, where keyboard entry is replaced

by cursor-motion; it is appealing to novices, is easily remembered by frequent

users and provides rapid access for frequent users.

This is typical of contemporary interactive training devices, although the extent to

which the learner can successfully perceive and interpret those representations will

be critical to their understanding the way in which the interactions are meant to

operate and the meaning being conveyed. The ability to manipulate objects is

however recognised as critical to successful interaction (Aldrich et al, 1998).

Implications from HCI Research

This brief summary of a very diverse field of study has identified three issues. First,

HCI can be studied from a number of perspectives, each of which can impact our

understanding of CEL. Second, successful H C I can be confounded by gulfs of

execution and evaluation, which impact the overall success of the interaction. Third, the

range of tasks or interactions identified with HCI may differ from those of CEL, but the

impact of experience is a c o m m o n variable.

The implication of these observations is that the use and success of CEL will be

confounded by a potential lack of communication between learner and interface. The

extent to which the user is able to comfortably work with and understand the application

will help reduce any difficulties interpreting the purpose of the application. To achieve

this places responsibility on the team undertaking the design and development activities,

which is the object of the following discussion.

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

Overview

Given the above discussion on issues of learning and human-computer interaction the

following analysis focuses on the way interactivity is catered for in the design and

development process. H o w the theoretical prescriptions for successful learning can be

transformed into a computer-based interactive environment remains one of the major

challenges for the field today.

2-54

Hardware and Software

The combinations of computer hardware and software technologies are the enabling

factors for the conceptualisation and implementation of computer-based learning

applications. As introduced in Chapter 1, this hardware has evolved from the

teletypewriter of the 1960s to the complex multimedia and internet environments

available today. Any discussion of interactivity must therefore take into account the

facilities of the technology, as these constructs will determine and enable the overt

human-computer interactions. For example, the current hardware and software

technologies provide a multimedia world of audio, video, text, graphics and animation

(Tannenbaum, 1998), which require design teams to integrate these elements and

thereby demonstrate state-of-the-art compliance.

The hardware of a multimedia developer now includes the computer equipped with

appropriate components to produce sound, present video segments and present high-

resolution images. They also have access to the digital camera and video to capture

images or scenes, scanners to create images from printed material and large storage

devices including disks and C D - R O M s . The software of multimedia includes

programming languages, graphics manipulation tools, audio and video programs as well

as the operating systems and networking software which enable the software to control

the hardware and produce the desired outcome. The inexorable development of

technology has seen the ability to transmit multimedia elements over the internet using

streaming protocols, such that various news events or performances can be viewed from

the desktop computer. For example, a concert held in California on the weekend of

October 30/31 1999 was webcast, which meant viewers around the world could watch

the live performance on their own computer. Similar developments are being considered

in the on-line collaboration area, where the traditional text-based communications are

being challenged by "messaging systems that support the creation and posting of media-

rich messages and graphical display of the messages" (Bellamy, Woolsey, Cooper &

Kerns, 1999:149).

The software and hardware technology therefore enable the user to view and control a

media-rich environment that has been constructed to communicate some form of

information. The software tools which enable the creation of these controls and the

integration of media elements are generally referred to as authoring systems,

2-55

emphasising the role of the developer in the overall production process. The outputs of

this process also create the interactivity made available to the user. The development

tools create the facilities by which the user can navigate through the material presented,

select aspects of the content to view in detail and interrupt the presentation sequence.

However the interaction between user and content, and the resultant communication, is

dependent upon the strategies and concepts produced by the design team. W h e n

considered in terms of a learning experience, interactivity becomes not just the overt

options available to access and control the material but the underlying engagement and

meaning that is generated by these facilities. The options provided to guide design

teams in this endeavour are discussed in the following section.

Instructional Development Systems

The design and development approaches to computer-based applications, whether for

education or information processing, also have an impact on the interactivity

implemented. From the perspective of software development, methodologies have

evolved from the strict systems approaches of the early 1970s to the current rapid-

prototyping paradigms, especially with respect to multimedia applications

(Tannenbaum, 1998). However, unlike software applications where programming skills

are the pre-requisite for creating the applications, with educational applications the

instructional specialist has often been the person responsible for this task.

Models of Design

Dick & Carey (1990) identified a model which conformed to a general format of

Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation - a staged approach

which focused on the structuring of content according to defined learning objectives.

This model, and others of a similar genre, conforms to an instructional philosophy

where the designer is the central figure in the way content is sequenced, structured and

presented. The application of these models to C E L environments has been widespread,

although as they were originally designed for classroom delivery of instructional

material, I have often conjectured as to whether the computer can or should be

perceived as a medium onto which these same constructs can be applied. Based on the

previous discussion, which identifies the focus of the individual learner and the role

they might play in the learner process, a potential problem with these design strategies

2-56

emerges. It is not so much their deconstruction of content that could be reassessed, but

in their assumptions that a designer can deconstruct content in such a way to make it

generically useful and meaningful to a specific group of learners. It is not so much the

instructional design process that may be at fault, but its interpretation and translation

into the interactive medium and subsequent impact on the individual learner.

To address this issue, new concepts of the design process for interactive learning

environments have been proposed. For example, Hedberg & Harper (1997) proposed a

three-layered model identifying learners, interaction and presentation as major elements

of the design process, and describing the way in which content material would fit into

these layers. A different approach by Sims (1997b) identified the outputs, techniques

and skills associated with a development project and the extent to which each of these

had impact at different stages of the process. Both of these represent methods to

enhance those design models on which the creation of C E L materials has traditionally

been based.

Perhaps the issue with instructional design and development processes for CEL is that

they involve a diverse range of skills. Those skills necessary to take advantage of the

interactive medium such as metaphor, interface, communication, information and

interactive design (Shedroff, 1994) have yet to be clearly specified as requisite

components of the design and development team. A good computer programmer, a

good instructional designer and a knowledgable content expert may not create the

appropriate synergy to develop effective and truly interactive C E L environments if they

do not have additional skills understanding interactivity and its component elements.

Contemporary Issues

The extent to which the computer-based medium continues to provide challenges for

representing information in a digital and interactive format is well illustrated by the

creative efforts from people with little formal background in educational computing.

For example Flick & Goodall (1998), adopting the new digital media for recording of

oral histories, describe their project to use technology as a resource for Aboriginal

community history:

In describing new media, a widespread approach relates interface design to spatial metaphors, and it is an indication of the complex ambiguities of this issue that... I M M is often described using the colonial language of exploration, discovery and capture.

2-57

W e used what looked like overlays to attempt to explain the co-existence of various types of knowledge mapped onto the land for different cultural and historical contexts. ... However, w e became concerned that the metaphor of place was too static to give full expression to what w e saw as the striking dominant characteristic of the history w e were engaged in. The form of oral traditions and oral performance of memory is strongly narrative and dramatic. ... So w e shifted focus to explore the ways in which storytelling can become a more fundamental part of the structure and form of our program, rather than just the content. (Flick & Goodall, 1998:426.)

The importance of this reflection on the development of multimedia lies in the problems

which confront both the user and the means by which content is represented. It appears

that as we gather knowledge about the way in which people work with computer-based

systems, more emphasis needs to be placed on creating content that is consistent with

the way people can interact with the technology. It is not simply a case of reproducing

materials in a computer environment, but of restructuring and reconceptualising the

relationship between user and content when that relationship is computer-based. The

complexity of factors which contribute to an understanding of the condition of

interactivity are well summarised, with specific reference to the design environment, by

Yeamen, Hlynka, Anderson, Damarin & Muffoletto (1996:285) who suggest a set of

ideas for postmodern instructional design:

Accept that there are probably several workable solutions to every instructional design problem, not just one ideal solution.

Expect diversity in the way students and trainees understand and what they understand. This increasingly comes from the teaching of English, and related subjects, where commonsense understandings of media are being replaced by analysis and interpretation. Advocate this way of understanding as superior to the myth of the linear, pipeline transmission of knowledge.

Examine and learn from instruction that supposedly fails as well as instruction that succeeds as predicted.

Be cautious: all media are metaphorical and never mean exactly what they seem to convey. It is not possible to escape from language but metaphors, symbols and models should be used with care

Look for self-contradictions in your own messages and in other people's messages.

Break away from the tradition of communication that assigns power to the creators of instructional messages and denies it to learners. Its authoritarian approach is its failing.

Evaluate technological fixes, not only to see if the original problem has been solved but to see what else has been changed. Have new problems been created?

Avoid idealism suggesting there is a perfect meeting of minds. Although people are engaged in communication all their lives, there is seldom an absolute correspondence in understandings.

Plan by considering needs and not just technologies. Your task is to solve real world problems and not to advocate mythical solutions such as computers.

2-58

As with all aspects of software design and development, the interaction of social,

cultural, pedagogical and technological factors will impact the way in which the overall

production process is implemented. These observations provide a context for assessing

current practices with contemporary thinking. The resultant impact on interactivity will

be manifested in the way the content is structured and presented, and the means by

which the user or learner can work with that content.

INDIVIDUAUSATION

Overview

The argument to date has posited that new approaches to the way the learner is

understood within the learning process are critical to the success of CEL. More

importantly, this approach is consistent with the changing role of the teacher, from

delivering knowledge to one who can assist interpret and develop knowledge in the

learner. Within that context it is important to examine the various factors that impact on

the learner as an individual, as one w h o m can determine the success or failure of an

educational encounter. In relation to this, the following section considers the focus or

target group of instructional materials and the learning environment in which they are

located. In addition, the discussion addresses what I perceive to be the major research

areas that have had an impact on developing an understanding of interactivity, including

learner control, learning style, cognitive load, adaptation and perception.

Target Groups

The people for w h o m a computer-based learning application is directed determine both

its structure and its acceptance. At a basic level, a product aimed at children will look

and behave differently from one directed at adults. However, that does not mean that

adult applications should be bland and conservative while children's software manifests

flair and colour. Rather, the characteristics of the different groups should be carefully

considered when developing the software. More importantly, as w e are currently

placing more emphasis on the role of the learner, the means they have for working with

the content needs to be carefully considered. In this study m y major interest is in the use

of C E L with adult learners, as this is one group for w h o m large investments are still

being made in the development of C D - R O M applications. The following provides a

brief summary of the differentiating characteristics of this specific group.

2-59

Learners

The role of the adult learner has been considered as being quite different from that of a

child. Knowles (1990) differentiates between pedagogy (the art and science of teaching

children) and andragogy (the art and science of helping adults to learn). While there is

no argument that people undertake learning in different environments which then

impact on the ways in which delivery and evaluation is conducted, it would appear that

it is the experience of the learner that is critical, rather than their particular

developmental stage. There is no reason why younger learners should be afforded any

less choices and advantages than the adult learner.

From my experience, working with a number of Australian organisations in the

development of C E L resources to specifically cater for training programs, there has

often been a tendency to develop materials using assumptions on the role of computer

and learner from the teacher rather than the learner perspective. H o w the learner is

conceptualised by the design team is therefore an integral element in the success of the

application. Given that many applications will continue to be developed for use by

learners in an independent setting, the way in which they approach the learning

experience and their expectations for having different levels of control and outcomes

will significantly impact on the way in which interactions implemented are understood.

It is this view of education and learning being more contextual and more dependent on

the learner that I believe will impact on the nature of learning with computers. The

contemporary approaches to working with adult learners will eventually filter to the

workplace and replace the current practices that, from the perspective of the writers in

Foley (2000), are inappropriate for the current environment. By focusing on the ways in

which computer-based interactive learning environments might emulate this view of

learning, w e may get closer to more successful and consistently effective applications.

As Foley (2000:21) contends, adult educators and trainers must develop frameworks

that are:

holistic - they comprehensively account for the contextual and ethical factors which shape adult education; coherent - they give a clear account of the ways in which these different factors interact in particular situations; and strategic - they help adult educators act at both the micro (classroom) and macro (social-movement) level.

2-60

The responsibility of the educator (teacher) is developing into one who has increased

responsibility for the structural, social and cultural characteristics of the course content,

thereby enabling an environment in which the adult learner may effectively operate.

Learning Environments

Increasingly, the concept of the on-line learning community is gaining prominence,

essentially as a result of the growth of the internet, with implications on the ways in

which non-physical human relationships can be established and the resulting effects of

changes to those relationships (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). While perhaps more specific to

the formal educational institution, there is growth (or perhaps regrowth) in this form of

education in the training environment and adult education, as evidenced by commercial

conferences on topics such as "Harnessing eLearning and Technology Assisted

Training" (International Quality & Productivity Centre, 2000). While a number of texts

are now appearing to support the design and development of Web-Based Training (for

example, Hall, 1997), there remains a tendency to focus on the how of development

rather than the who (or object) of the development.

Learning environments, when applied to CEL, introduce elements such as contextual

and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1990), which promote the positioning of the

learner into real-world situations to maximise the effectiveness of the learning. In many

ways this ties into the value of the simulation described in detail by Alessi & Trollip

(1991) and the extent to which the accuracy or fidelity of the environment matches

reality (Alessi, 1988). A n example of this was cited previously under Interactivity and

Context, page 2-41) with reference to a simulated bomb-disposal activity.

Control

There have been many and diverse studies undertaken on the extent to which interactive

learning applications enhance the learning process. The underlying assumption of these

has been that privileges afforded to either the program or learner in the computer-based

learning environment will increase performance. From m y analysis of these studies over

the past twenty years, one element appears to have often been omitted from the

discussion and that is the effect of the application itself (in terms of structure, design

and interface) on the overall findings. While the focus of such studies was on variables

2-61

such as control, style or load, the effect of the communication, interactivity and design

has received consideration only recently (for example, Szabo & Kanuka, 1999).

Studies such as Milheim's (1990) identification of choice of pace, sequence and content

as typical of learner control and Kinzie, Sullivan & BerdeFs (1988) findings of

continued motivation for learner control, have demonstrated various facets of the

benefits of learner control. The underlying question being explored by these research

studies was that control, manifested through a range of interactions, provides an

individualised and therefore desirable learning environment. However, these findings

have in some ways been confounded by Reeves' (1993) analysis that was roundly

critical of the research conducted in the field of computer-based learning and especially

that of learner control, a criticism extending to its being labelled as pseudoscience.

There seems no doubt that learner control is critical to the interactive process, but to

what extent does learner control, the learner's ability to move through pre-defined

instructional sequences, impact on the overall success of the interactive experience? As

a person w h o has developed C E L applications, the controls made available to the

learner are only those provided in the design and subsequent programming. The extent

to which these controls add to the learner's motivation and engagement are an issue that

continue to be analysed, especially given the dynamic state of learning theory as well as

hardware and software technologies.

Adaptation

The ability of both program and learner to have access to control of particular

components of the learning sequence provides the potential for the program or learner to

adapt the process according to their particular specifications or requirements. Park

(1996:634) introduces a discussion of adaptive systems with the observation that:

A central and persisting issue in educational technology is the provision of instructional environments and conditions that can comply with individually different educational goals and learning abilities.

The creation of CEL applications that can adapt to the individual learner are perceived

as solutions to this situation, and this individualisation is often characterised by the

learner being able to control the pace and sequence of their learning. Park (1996) offers

three approaches to assessing adaptive instruction:

2-62

• on the macro level by enabling alternatives such as goals or content,

• using aptitude-treatment interaction (Cronbach & Snow, 1977) to address

individual learning characteristics, or

• on the micro level by diagnosing specific learning needs.

One of the issues emerging from this concept is the person responsible for the

adaptation - is it based on algorithmic prescriptions of the designer or the immediate

needs of the learner? Learners being able to adapt the learning to their own needs may

be equally appropriate as those where the program makes judgements on the learner's

individual performance or progress and making presentation decisions based on that

judgement. Again, this level of program and learner control is based on the design

strategy employed and the perspective of the design team on the teaching and

knowledge acquisition process.

Style

Another area linked to C E L and which has received considerable research attention has

been that of learning styles, and the various approaches people bring to the learning

environment. Based on the assumption that individuals will manifest a preferred style of

learning (cf. Kolb; 1976, 1984; Honey & Mumford, 1992), it was understood that

developing C E L applications that could adapt to these different styles would be

advantageous to the individual learner. Burger (1985) found no statistically significant

relationship between learning style (on field dependency) and academic achievement,

although indicating that the program used was essentially tutorial in nature and

therefore limited in adaptive functionality. Given the range of options for delivering

CEL, the tutorial is possibly the most conservative, and may be inappropriate for

adapting to an individual's learning style. Similarly, Larsen (1992) found that

effectiveness and acceptance of C E L was independent of learning style. However, more

recent research reports variation in performance as a function of learning style and its

relationship to learner control (Rasmussen & Davidson-Shivers, 1998). In this case the

development of courseware to accommodate learner preferences was advocated, with

the implication that more effective control would be implicit in this form of application.

2-63

Perception and Load

The way in which w e perceive information will impact on the success of the

communication and our ability to extract meaning from that information. The

contemporary user is faced not only with an array of text fonts, sizes and colours but

also with graphics, animations, video and audio representations. Additionally, many of

these presentation objects also provide links or controls by which the user is expected to

access and manipulate the associated content. The complexity of these stimuli is

attracting greater attention in terms of the effectiveness of their use, especially in the

learning context.

For example, Reiber (1994) differentiates three forms of image:

• representational - where the graphic resembles the content being discussed,

• analogical - where the graphic implies similarity with the content, and

• arbitrary - where graphics share no similarity with what is being represented)

forms of image.

His analysis also identifies the issues of perception and memory as integral to the

research on the use of both static and animated graphics. With reference to static

images, Rieber (1994:142) suggested that "too much or too little detail may be

detrimental to learning ... learners prefer aesthetically pleasing graphics, but they do not

contribute to learning per se". Similar findings were derived from assessing animated

graphics, with variables such as target group and familiarity with content. Rieber (1994)

identifies the dilemma faced by developers - resisting using animation without a

rationale or being creative and using the features of the computer medium. From m y

experience in both development and evaluation, applications too frequently use very

effective animations, but often demonstrating the skills of the developer rather than

providing learners with meaningful information.

A recent analysis of the way in which graphical representations work (Scaife & Rogers,

1996), in which they suggest little is understood about their operation, reinforces the

findings of Rieber (1994). They highlight the assumption that as the technology enables

more complex and realistic images to be displayed, the extent of their value to

interactivity remains unclear. In addition, one area that has received little attention is the

2-64

effect of culturally or gendered inappropriate or misunderstood images. This further

emphasises the importance of the individual learner, and their particular preferences and

characteristics, in the C E L environment.

In relation to the way in which we perceive information is the impact those

representations have on our ability to process the information. Sweller (1988) and

Chandler & Sweller (1991) analysed this issue in terms of the cognitive load

experienced, specifically examining the effect of the ways in which w e integrate

different information sources, such as text and diagrams, when they refer to the same

information. Their findings identified the importance of pictorial elements in the

communication process and their impact on reducing cognitive load.

The implications of perception for interactivity relate to the effect of material presented

on the communicative nature of the learning experience. If the sequence and continuity

of the process is affected because the learner becomes distracted by a graphical display,

or the arrangement of the media elements causes the learner to redirect their attention

from the task, there m a y be interruption to the interaction, and to the learning.

Summary

One of the major objectives for an educational environment is for the learners to

become engaged with the learning activities and motivated to continue working with the

content. In a C E L environment this is even more critical because a teacher or facilitator

may not be present. The preceding discussion has identified a range of factors that

impact on the way in which interactions might be considered and the potential

implications for achieving engaging and motivating experiences.

The adult learner can be portrayed as being self-directed, and therefore needs to be

granted autonomy and control over the learning process. The style of the individual

learner m a y also affect their interpretation of material. Enabling them to determine

presentation aspects may assist addressing their individual style. Creating programs that

adapt or are adaptable will also enhance the control and address the individual's

learning style. A n d within the context of learning environments, the presentation and

use of media elements can impact the way in which the learner is integrated into the

learning process. Minimising an external load will maximise the chances of their

remaining focused on the learning task.

2-65

The individual learner is the critical component of an educational endeavour, and with

C E L this individualisation will be supported by the interactive elements incorporated by

the design and development effort. The issues associated with this form of

communication are discussed in the following section.

COMMUNICATION

Overview

The following discussion examines the field of communication and its relevance to

learners and computers. As learning practices have developed and computer-

technologies changed, so too have approaches to communication. From the transmission

model of Shannon & Weaver (1949) to concepts of interpersonal, mass communication

and the inter-relationships of culture and communication, all such approaches provide

inputs relating to the ways in which interactivity and C E L can be better understood.

To add to the complexity, the term communication is not only used to refer to the way

people exchange messages and the meanings assigned to those exchanges, but also as a

label for the physical wiring associated with telecommunications facilities within an

organisation. As with the various ways in which interactivity can be interpreted, I am

focusing this study not on the facility of technology to transmit data from one location

to another, but on the extent to which understanding the way people communicate might

lead to more effective ways of implementing interactive C E L products.

Interactivity and Communication

Apart from the growing use of the internet for message transmission and information

access, the use of multimedia elements can be considered state-of-the-art in terms of

presentation mode. Tannenbaum (1998) perceives that the development of multimedia

applications is founded on the sciences of computing and communication. More

explicitly, and in terms of interactivity, he concludes that:

The ultimate form of interactivity in communication is achieved in face-to-face, human communication. Computers are not human, and communication between a user and a computer is not the same as communication between people. However, as artificial intelligence, natural language processing, and virtual reality become more sophisticated and advanced, computers will be able to emulate interpersonal reactions to a greater and greater extent. All evidence now seems to indicate that drawing the human-computer interface closer to interpersonal communication improves the effectiveness, acceptance, and enjoyment of multimedia productions. (Tannenbaum, 1998:301-302)

2-66

This notion that the ultimate form of interactivity is human-human is in one sense

accurate, and success in making the computer replicate human behaviour and

communication patterns is unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, from m y

perspective there is no reason why learners and computers should not continue to

interact, with the challenge being to develop a means by which computers communicate

with the learner to develop within themselves a sense of accomplishment.

By focusing on the range of approaches to communication, it is suggested that a more

comprehensive understanding of interactivity will emerge and therefore assist in the

creation of a broader set of prescriptions and guidelines that designers and developers of

educational software can utilise.

In an analysis of interactivity and its relationship to computer-based instruction,

Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat (1991) commence their discussion by examining

elements of interpersonal communication. Using Berlo's (1960) levels of

communicative interdependence and Selnow's (1988) features of interaction, they

argued that these positions hold lessons for designers of instructional software. More

explicitly, Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat (1991:12) compare the lack of interactivity

of page-turning applications to those where the program "allows the learner to become a

part of its world, where the computer seems to disappear and is replaced by an entity

whose o w n responses are highly related to the user's input". This notion of the user

entering into a partnership with the computer is echoed by the mutual environments

proposed by Schwier & Misanchuk (1993) and will be explored in more detail in

Chapter 3. Interestingly however, the following comparison between books and

interactivity tells a different story:

Consider an ordinary textbook. These normally offer at least five kinds of interaction: they may be read sequentially, they have a hierarchical structure, they have an index for accessing by content and they have page numbers. In addition, learners can and do make marks in them. Very, very little software offers all 5 of these modes of interaction: computers have not in the main yet caught up with print as an interactive medium. (Draper, 1996:2).

It is not so much that page-turning applications offer limited interactivity and little

communication, but that the page turning applications do not offer the degree of

interactivity expected with such a metaphor.

2-67

Identifying similarities between interactivity and interpersonal communication is

important because it provides a means to focus on the effects that the learner and

instructional material (originating from a designer) have on each other. One example of

this was presented by Heeter (1989), w h o proposed six aspects of interactivity that

provide a useful means to conceptualise these associations:

• Choice and Selectivity - providing more choices and the ability to make

selections from those choices increases the interactivity.

This position implies that the doing of something increases the interactivity. While

this is correct in a sense, the doing should also be meaningful to the learner and a

component of both the design and learning strategies.

• Effort - the higher the ratio between user and computer activity, the greater the

interactivity.

Again it can be argued that this effort must be productive rather than interfering -

there is little use in making the effort if all the energy is placed into trying to

understand the learning environment being presented.

• Responsiveness - the extent to which a computer responds appropriately to

human input affects the interactivity.

The determinant of 'what is appropriate to who' is critical in this context, and

reinforces the previous discussion on individualisation.

• Monitoring - greater interactivity is provided when more sophisticated forms of

user tracking and record keeping are maintained.

The implication therefore is that the more data an application maintains about user

performance and navigation the more adaptive it will be.

• Addition of Information - when users are able to add material to the knowledge

base, the more interactive the system becomes.

In many instances this has not been a feature of C E L applications, where the content

has been structured explicitly by the development team.

2-68

• Facilitation of Interpersonal Communication - the extent to which a computer

emulates and/or enables interpersonal communication will impact the

effectiveness of the interactivity.

If the learner believes that they are engaging in a meaningful dialogue, then some

form of communication will be taking place. The extent to which this has to emulate

a human-human conversation, in comparison to the learner's comfort level with the

give and take of information, is one of the questions being address in this study.

While these elements are important, the language used to specify the characteristics of

these dimensions can be limiting. For example, the responsiveness component alludes to

an appropriate response being made by the computer - but what is appropriate and for

whom? Is it the designer's assumption of appropriate responses to predetermined inputs,

or responses perceived by the user to be appropriate to their input? It is the latter aspect

that has become the focus of contemporary communication studies and requires

acknowledgment in the study of C E L and interactivity.

Communication and Culture

More recent approaches to communication, particularly in the academic sector, have

examined the way people interact under the banner of cultural studies. These more

recent interpretations also provide a means by which to compare past, present and future

implementations of computer-based interactive environments. As an example, Schirato

& Yell (1996:1) identify communication in terms of its interdependence with culture,

noting that:

Meanings are not to be found or understood exclusively in terms of acts of communication, but are produced within specific cultural contexts. Moreover, communication can be understood as the practice of producing meanings. Communication practices refer to the ways in which systems of meaning are negotiated by participants in a culture and culture can be understood as the totality of communication practices and systems of meaning.

The importance of this approach to communication is that it places emphasis on the

recipient and the meanings they will place on information received, which in turn will

be based on their particular cultural, gendered and social background and experiences.

The implication for the design and development of C E L applications is significant, as

this perspective suggests that material designed for learning may not be interpreted as

such by the intended audience, especially if there are differences in the way the designer

2-69

and learner interpret the meanings of the content material. This assessment can be

expanded to include the cultural, gender or organisational biases that may be placed on

content material and the different ways in which the learner might interpret them.

However, this does not mean that C E L projects will fail unless all individuals are

catered for in some way. O n the contrary, what is required are new ways in which to

implement the content such that individual learners will be able to gain value by being

able to apply their o w n meanings and interpretations to the content.

The way that understandings of learning and communication have evolved are highly

pertinent to the debates that have surrounded educational technology paradigms. For

example, rather than attempting to validate Merrill et al's (1996) claim that instructional

technology is a science compared to the speculation of constructivism, from m y

perspective it may be more appropriate to place more emphasis on the individual and

their interpretations of meaning. Re-emphasising the learner in the overall process, and

how they might wish to deal with and interpret the content, may be the next phase in

coming to better understand the ways in which value can be obtained from creating

educational environments where learners interact with computers.

CONCLUSION

Understanding interactivity is a complex framework of learning theory, human-

computer interaction, design processes, research outcomes and communication. While it

is clear that interactivity is perceived as providing a range of benefits, there remains a

level of uncertainty about which component of interactivity affects the various elements

of learning. Given that C E L is a legitimate form of educational presentation, the

following research question provides a second focus by which to examine the current

understanding of interactivity.

In what ways are interactive elements considered to impact on

the learning process?

The following chapter extends this framework of interactivity by providing a detailed

examination of the way in which interactivity as a concept has been interpreted, the

extent to which more research into its effect on learning is essential, and h o w its overall

impact is critical to the future production of effective C E L applications.

CHAPTER 3 :

THE PRACTICE OF INTERACTIVITY

INTRODUCTION

The analysis to date has identified the major elements which have contributed to our

current understanding of the interactive multimedia learning environment and the

various contributions made by theories of learning to the benefits of implementing

interactive aspects into computer-based learning applications. This chapter focuses

specifically on the nature and practice of interactivity and the different ways in which it

has been characterised in computer-based educational environments. More importantly,

it demonstrates that interactivity is a multi-faceted construct and its value to learning is

dependent largely on its interpretation by designers and developers.

The first section of this chapter identifies the issues that currently confront an

examination of interactivity in the context of computer-based learning. This is

supported by an overview of the various perspectives by which interactivity has been

addressed, from the overt physical to the covert cognitive and from taxonomy to

measure, demonstrating the variety of ways in which interactivity has come to be

understood and applied. The second section focuses on a comparatively recent

development in considering effective implementations of interactivity, that of narrative

and the ways in which elements of storytelling might enhance engagement in computer-

based learning. The extent to which the learner becomes integrated into a story line may

provide a more effective environment for taking advantage of the range of interactions

available. The final section relates the elements of interactivity and narrative to that of

performance and theatre, assessing the concept of computers as theatre (Laurel, 1991)

as a metaphor to support the design and development of C E L applications.

By examining these aspects of the practice of interactivity, this chapter aims to develop

a better understanding of the factors which inhibit or enhance content engagement, and

the communication or transfer of knowledge which results in deep processing and

consequential learning.

3-71

ISSUES OF INTERACTIVITY

Overview

Interactivity refers to the facilities provided by a computer-based application to provide

the user with both control of the process and communication with content. This

communication involves both the user initiating an action and the computer responding

to that action. The computer's role with interactivity is to provide the necessary

processing power to interpret and respond to a user's action, thereby generating a form

of human-computer dialogue. This section demonstrates that while interactivity as a

concept has retained a high profile throughout the history of computer-based learning,

its interpretation has undergone a metamorphosis and continues to be regarded as

complex and difficult to define.

The discussion commences with an overview of the contemporary approaches to the

concept of interactivity and the issues that have been considered relevant to its

understanding. W h e n viewed in conjunction with the various ways in which

interactivity has been conceptualised, it becomes clearer that rather than there being a

problem with the definition of interactivity, it is more that its complexity and

implementation formats have yet to be contextualised comprehensively.

Contemporary Issues

Interactivity is often portrayed as the distinguishing factor of the new media, with the

assumption that "interactivity in a computer product means that the user, not the

designer, controls the sequence, the pace, and most importantly, what to look at and

what to ignore" (Kristof & Satran, 1995:35). Holmes (1995:1-2) describes the essence

of interactivity, which succinctly highlight the popular understanding of interactivity:

Interactivity is the ability of a new media program, web site, kiosk or multimedia presentation, to allow its user to control the content in some manner . Interactivity must involve, engage, and motivate the user to explore the product... Bad interactivity happens. The user can be frustrated by muddled organization, too much information or poor instructions ... Interactive properties of new media should provide opportunities for the user: exploration, discovery, and collaboration. Well conceived interactivity knows its audience, understands their knowledge base, and uses terms and phrases that are commonly understood by the audience. Good interactivity also takes into account the situation of the audience.

Examining this perception reveals a number of major factors. First, the user or learner

must be able to control the application and the application must be designed to engage

3-72

the user. Second, the user must have some freedom in working with the application and

third, the product should be designed for a specific target audience. Interactivity, at least

from this perspective, is partly about what the user does and partly about h o w the

application is designed. However, such ideas contrast with the developing notion of the

user as individual - are w e as designers in a position to create an application that will

suit a specific, homogenous target group? It can be argued that such a group cannot

exist because of the extensive set of individual characteristics and interpretations, and

therefore h o w learners perceive the design process is dependent on the ways in which

the design team perceives teaching and learning. This suggests that the extent to which

educational effectiveness is understood in terms of the teacher or learner might

contribute to aspects of ineffective computer-based interactivity.

A contrasting view highlights the ways in which the term interactivity is used

semantically - and one which results in "at best confusion and at worst deception"

(Heath, 1996:1). While acknowledging that computers can support an interactive

experience, Heath (1996) concludes that it is ostensibly a function of human-human

communication. This is supported to some extent by Outing (1998) who sees access to

content through web-sites as a basic form of interactivity, whereas the major form is

manifested where communication is facilitated between humans -computer-mediated

communication.

In a conversation reported by Brand (1988), the question of interactivity was raised. The

respondent, Andrew Lippman, replied that it referred to "mutual and simultaneous

activity on the part of both participants, usually working toward some goal, but not

necessarily" and identified five corollaries of interactivity - intestability; graceful

degradation, limited look-ahead, no default and impression of an infinite database

(Brand, 1988:46). These elements combine many of the issues identified above and

extend the notion to the computer program having responsibility for some of the

interaction, as would be expected in a two way process.

These corollaries also highlight the extent to which current approaches are emphasising

a movement from teacher-centred to learner centred environments, where the learner

has more involvement in the overall process. Jaspers (1991:21) considered this

relationship between interactivity, teacher and learner in suggesting that:

3-73

In fact, the expression of "interactive delivery is contradicto in terminis from the viewpoint of interaction and emancipation. Delivery implies a unidirectional relationship. In full interaction there can be no one-sided relation; the student is not just at the end of a chain but also at its beginning.

In proposing a nascent theory of interactivity Jaspers (1991) identified different levels

ranging from the linear (information delivery) to the communicative (student initiated).

The issue is whether a theory can be used to predict h o w specific interactions might

work or whether the learner largely determines the successful of an interaction. If this

latter option holds true, then there is a case for emphasising learner-centred design,

where the learner is not only the major focus of the design activity but also involved and

integrated with the design team.

Another issue relates to developing some common form of meaning for the concept of

interactivity. Schwier & Misanchuk (1993) refer to the levels defined in the literature as

arbitrary and non-descriptive, Aldrich at el (1998) refer to the term interactivity as

ubiquitous and Plowman (1996b) considers the excesses of physical interactions as

gratuitous. The importance of working towards a resolution or better understanding of

these interpretations is clearly supported by Hannafin, Hannafin, Hooper, Rieber & Kini

(1996:385):

Though lauded by many for its ability to handle user inputs, there is little consensus with regard to the design of human computer interactions. Indeed, disagreement even exists about the meaning of the terms interactive as applied to emerging technologies. Researchers have described fundamentally different perspectives on the roles of interactions, ranging from facilitating lesson navigation to supporting encoding of specific lesson context... Research on interaction methods may be among the most critical... The domain of possibilities has broadened substantially, yet little research has been advanced which might guide their design.

Interestingly, Bartolomd (1998:1) cites a colleague who claimed "Interactivity?

Computers are not interactive, they can only be reactive. To be interactive they must be

intelligent." In assuming that computers did not possess the intelligence to maintain a

useful interaction, this comment becomes crucial for educational technology. The extent

to which true interactivity, rather than reactive presentation, can be implemented will

ultimately determine the effectiveness and success of C E L applications.

A different approach to assessing interactivity was undertaken by Rose (1999) who,

given the various taxonomies of interactivity, set about a deconstruction of established

understandings. Critical of the "good" versus "bad" mentality that pervades the field

3-74

(active not passive, learner control not program control, constructivism not

instructivism, hypermedia not linear delivery), Rose (1999:45) portrays an interesting

scenario:

Texts addressing the subject of interactivity ... privilege representations of highly motivated learners exploring the wonderful worlds of interactive instructional programs and making exciting discoveries. However, it is by virtue of a deconstructive reading that w e can begin to see the shadowy figure of the disavowed other lurking behind these wide-eyed adventurers: the shadow of a child sitting mesmerised and immobile before the computer, only her index finger on the mouse moving occasionally as a stream of images passes in a more or less predetermined sequence before her eyes.

In extending this comparison of learners, Rose (1999) emphasises that the advent of

web-based applications has been used to demonstrate new levels of interactivity,

specifically referring to the navigation and control of links between various web sites.

While these modes of interaction do represent the means required to work with much

web-based material, they are by no means new, as comparable interactive options have

been widely used in C E L applications (Alessi & Trollip, 1991; Schwier & Misanchuk,

1993; Boyle, 1997). In continuing this critique, Rose (1999) focuses explicitly on the

notion of learner control, the variable perhaps most researched and yet most criticised in

the field (Reeves, 1993). Her observation is that while the words "learner control" have

come to be accepted as control by the learner, syntactical comparisons (for example

crowd control, weight control) tend to imply the opposite - control of the learner. This

comment on control provides reinforcement for maintaining and extending research into

making interactive learning work better, as advocated by Rose (1999:48):

That the field of educational computing is in need of... internal critique is surely suggested by the fact that the very quality which is said to make computers unique and to justify their instructional use continues to defy definition.

Interactivity, in the context of computer-based learning, can range from simple

navigation through web pages to the immersion in interactive virtual worlds with access

to alternate realities. While the many dimensions of interactivity are well documented,

there remains considerable uncertainty about h o w best to design and implement

interactions to achieve the desired learning goals. While in the educational technology

field there has been a distinct shift from interactivity as overt physical reactions to

internal cognitive processing, the forms of interactivity reflected in the media associated

with the emerging digital culture have not consistently followed this shift.

3-75

One reason why the implementation of interactivity may not have maintained

consistency with educational directions may be a result of the different ways in which it

has come to be understood. In the following analysis, a series of constructs are

identified by which interactivity has been contextualised, extending the discussion of

the interactive conditions presented in Chapter 2. These constructs provide a means to

differentiate the various ways in which the concept of interactivity has been addressed

in the field of educational technology.

Interactivity as CONTROL

Developing an understanding of interactivity was given much attention when computer

technology was linked to the control of video devices - either videotape or videodisc.

Specifically, the extent to which the learner had control over the playing of the video

sequences was considered to represent the quality or level of the interactions, as

introduced by Iuppa (1984). The interpretation of these levels varies somewhat between

commentators (for example, compare Alessi & Trollip, 1991; Schwier & Misanchuk,

1993), but have the following characteristics:

• Level 0 - linear playback with no intervention by the learner.

• Level I - linear playback with learner intervention through a remote controller.

• Level II - learner-controlled access to pre-defined segments with frame-accurate

access as well as speed, direction, freeze frame, search and scanning control.

• Level III - provides links between computer and videodisc; the program

characteristics enable the learner to request video sequences or for specific

sequences to played as a result of learner responses.

The extent to which the learner has control over the technology and the learning

materials was also considered by Rhodes & Azbell (1985) in proposing three forms of

interaction design strategies for computer-assisted interactive video - reactive, proactive

and coactive - which integrated the control of content and structure. As shown in Figure

3.1, as more control is provided to the learner the more they become proactive in

determining the presentation forms of the content material.

3-76

User Control of

Structure

Extended

Limited

COACTIVE

REACTIVE

PROACTIVE

COACTIVE

Limited Extended

User Control of

Content

Figure 3.1: Forms of Interaction (Rhodes &Azbell, 1985:31)

Nevertheless, these dimensions were considered possibly "useful for interactive video

and training applications but too narrow for education and development applications"

(Rhodes & Azbell, 1985:32). This resulted in a fourth form of interaction being

proposed - transactive - where users would communicate using a wide range of media

to devise problem definitions, procedures and solutions. This appears to be a prescient

acknowledgment of where technology might go through illustrating the perceived

advantages of multimedia and web-based communication technologies.

The use of learner control and program control in CEL as research variables has

received extensive coverage, specifically in terms of their impact on learning (Williams,

1993). For example, an examination of the effects of different forms of interactivity on

interactive video instruction concluded that "an improvement in learning may be

expected in proportion to the amount and type of interactivity provided" (Schaffer &

Hannafin (1986:94). Another study determined that students had a preference for being

able to control an interactive videodisc compared to a video presentation (Summers,

1990).

The benefits of the control dimension were also addressed by the observation that

learners could "adjust the instruction to conform to their needs and capabilities. The

learner becomes an active participant, rather than passive observer, making significant

decisions and encountering their consequences" (Weller, 1988:23). However, the value

of these consequences emerges from the way in which the application responds or

adapts to the learner's actions.

Interactivity as ADAPTATION

The extent to which the computer-based learning application responds to a user's input

is often referred to as adaptation. This adaptation can range from the program

3-77

responding to a user's choice (such as a menu selection) to presenting material

specifically structured according to the learner's prior responses or options. As

described by Jonassen (1985:7), adaptation is part of the overall process of learner-

computer interaction:

Interactive lessons are those in which the learner actively or overtly responds to information presented by the technology, which in turn adapts to the learner, a process more commonly referred to as feedback. The point is that interactive lessons require at least the appearance of two-way communication. (Jonassen 1985:7)

In this instance the adaptive capacity of the program is viewed in terms of a

combination of the learner response and computer feedback, which in turn provides a

form of communication. This process of question-response-feedback has been perceived

by many writers as the essence of interactivity for computer-based learning. For

example, Steinberg (1991:100) observes that "question-response-feedback sequences

help learners attain higher cognitive skills as well as factual information" and links the

two elements of control and adaptation to the mechanics of interacting with the system

(navigation) and the acquisition of knowledge and skills (learning).

Another element of adaptation is the concept of branching, the paths selected by the

learner or program subsequent to or conditional upon a learner's response. Weller

(1988:4) stated that "branching is the crux of interactivity", which was also taken up in

terms of the extent to which branching is a conditional outcome, and a critical element

of achieving the promise of educational technology:

The conditional branching capability of the computer is one of the most important components of interactivity ... the ability to conditionally branch a learner's progress based on knowledge, preference, performance, or given conditions is the very promise of C B T . (Gery, 1987:25-26).

The elements of both control and adaptation were also identified by Borsook &

Higginbotham-Wheat (1991) as essential ingredients for successful interactivity. These

elements, consistent with the corollaries cited by Brand (1988), are characterised by:

• Immediacy of response - h o w rapidly the learner can receive information as a

result of an action.

• Non-sequential access of information - thereby enabling the learner to choose

information to be presented.

3-78

• Adaptability - a sequence of teacher-learner responses, guided by either

participant.

• Feedback - the information on which adaptations are made.

• Options - the alternatives made available to the learner.

• Bi-directional communication - where the computer is limited in the amount of

information presented without learner intervention.

• Grain-size - the time between learner inputs, with the option for learner

interruption being important.

By applying these ingredients to the development of CEL applications, Borsook &

Higginbotham-Wheat (1991) suggest that a form of optimal interactivity can be

achieved, where there is a balance of control between the learner and computer. This

approach was also advocated for the training environment as Gery (1987,14-15)

concludes:

A CBT interaction is either a course-initiated or learner-initiated stimulus-and-response cycle with the added dimension of having either the learner or course evaluate the response and then take another action that requires some response ... interactivity is the incorporation of repetitive, frequent, and meaningful iterations of a stimulus-response-analysis-feedback cycle into material that is presented in a medium that permits it. ... creating an interactive learning experience is the process of structuring and sequencing variations of this cycle into a series that, when experienced by the learner, results in progress toward knowledge or skill acquisition.

Overall, these descriptions clearly identify two major components of interactivity -

those which are program-initiated and tell the learner what to do and those which are

learner-initiated, such as requests for help, information or explanation. This balance is

also perceived as a means to achieve the goal of emulating human-human interaction in

the computer medium, and thereby enhancing participation in the learning process.

Interactivity as PARTICIPATION

In comparison to the overt actions of controlling the pace and sequence of the learning

or entering into a dialogue, the extent to which a learner is actually participating in and

engaging with the content material focuses on the outcomes of the learning process. For

example, Fenrich (1997:175) comments that:

Interactivity, or instructional features that promote active learning, provides critical support for increases in learning and retention in all educational activities ... Interaction

3-79

implies active learner participation in the learning process ... an essential condition for effective learning ... failure to build interactivity into your program will reduce learning and retention.

This position further reflects the shift in emphasis from the overt nature of interactivity

to the extent to which internal learning is facilitated. The extent to which the learner not

only participates by doing but also by engaging and communicating with the content

material is essential to the success of the C E L experience. In providing a set of

guidelines for interactivity, Fenrich (1997) suggests the following set of options that

emphasise both the role of the application and the user creating and enhancing the

overall interactive experience:

• Thought provoking questions to enable the user to mentally process information.

• Active participation in a simulation or an educational game.

• Providing feedback, both detailed and elaborative.

• Building on current knowledge and experience, allowing learners to compare

predictions and solutions.

• Learner control of pace and sequence.

• Student comments and annotations, for later analysis and comparison.

• Learner modifications to the computer program, by including their o w n material.

The way in which these options extend the control and adaptive constructs to maximise

the learner's purposeful activity would appear to be critical for on-going design and

development initiatives.

Interactivity as INDIVIDUALISED

In combination, the elements of control, adaptation and participation emphasise the

potential for computer-based technology to provide individualised learning experiences.

Hannafin & Peck (1988) include options such as identifying the learner by name,

assigning a name to the computer, using relevant examples and integrating background

information as strategies for making the experience meaningful to the learner. A n

additional element to consider is that of the experience level of the individual learner,

and the extent to which the program caters for this experience (Weller, 1988).

3-80

Applications that attempt to cater for the needs and experience of the individual learner

are to be lauded; however it is also important to consider the extent to which the learner

believes that they are being treated as an individual, and this leads to additional

considerations and concepts of interactivity. To provide a computer-based learning

environment with an appropriate combination of these interactive elements requires a

set of guidelines that focus on the design and development of the application and the

overall production process.

Interactivity as PRODUCTION

The success of interactivity can also be considered as a function of the overall software

production process. Where producers are well informed of the function of interactivity

in the learning context, the interactions are likely to be closely associated to the learning

process. Where the production team is less informed, the resulting interactions might be

more navigational than pedagogic. The creation of C E L applications involves the

conceptualisation and design of computer-based learning sequences, characterised by a

range of interactive options to facilitate that learning. With specific reference to the

development of training resources, (Gery, 1987) proposed five elements for

consideration, which are similar in many ways to those defined by Alessi & Trollip

(1991):

• Interactive practice exercises to incorporate a skill.

• Interactive case studies simulating situations in which the learner applies

previously acquired knowledge.

• Interactive role-plays in which people can practice new behaviours, approaches

or techniques.

• Interactive drills in which learners can improve mastery levels

• Interactive tests.

To provide a context for the design and development of such materials, Gery (1987)

proposed a series of interactive dimensions and a set of associated decision points

(Table 3.1). These further demonstrate the extent to which the design and development

process, where the interactive options are conceptualised and implemented, is critical to

the success of those interactions when encountered by the learner.

3-81

Nature of Interactions

Complexity

Response Analysis

Feedback

Branching

Learner Control

Questions; Choices or Decision Points

No. of fixed vs open-ended options for the learner

Inherent complexity of the stimulus-response required

Whether learners must "think" or react

Anticipated responses programmed

Unanticipated responses programmed

Tolerance for input

Nature (consequence or comment)

Depth

Number of conditional responses

Amount

Conditional vs non-conditional

Amount

Nature (mobility, options, inquiry, pathing)

Table 3.1: Dimensions of Interactivity (Gery, 1987)

Other elements of interactivity which were perceived as crucial to the training process,

and which also provided indicators for the development team on the complexity of the

production task, were defined by Gery (1987) as:

• The Nature and Frequency of Interactions - in terms of both the course and the

learner, including their intrinsic appropriateness to the educational process.

• Placement and Repetition of Interactions - as a function of the instructional

design strategy.

• Interrelationship of the Interactions - "complex interactions demanding

integration by the learner are difficult to develop, but the learner still needs

them" (Gery, 1987: 21), highlighting the choices which face those development

teams which do not have a high level of programming expertise.

• Complexity of the Interactions - based on the number of options (fixed or open-

ended), the inherent difficulty in making response, the number of variables a

learner must consider in making response and the nature of the cognitive activity

required to respond.

• Response Analysis - "the more possibilities the C B T accepts and appropriately

handles, combined with the relevance and complexity of the feedback to the

learner, the more interactive the program appears to be" (Gery, 1987:22). O f

importance is to w h o m the program appears to be interactive - the developer or

the learner?

3-82

• Feedback - based on its nature, depth, conditional responses and quality, which

supports the position that the value of any interaction is increased as a function

of feedback.

• Learner Control - the extent to which the learner can make decisions on the

pace and structure of the process.

• Branching - "the conditional branching capability of the computer is one of the

most important components of interactivity ... the ability to conditionally branch

a learner's progress based on knowledge, preference, performance, or given

conditions is the very promise of C B T " (Gery, 1987:25-26).

Interactivity as MEANINGFUL

Another aspect of research in the field of computer-based learning has been the

association of interactivity and the generation of meaning for the learner; this section

examines the ways in which interactivity can be linked to meaningful learning

experiences. Hannafin (1989:167) observed that while rapidly developing technologies

had "empowered instructional researchers and designers with unparalleled tools for

manipulating instructional strategies" little of that potential had been exploited. In

considering the concept of engagement, he suggested that "we are concerned with the

manner in which instruction fosters cognitive engagement - the intentional and

purposeful processing of lesson content" (Hannafin, 1989:170). To achieve this means

focusing less on the physical, overt aspects of interaction and more on the cognitive,

thinking activities of the embedded learning resource.

To provide a context for meaningful learning, Hannafin (1989) identified a set of five

interactive functions (navigation, query, verification, elaboration, procedural control)

and suggested a set of engaging activities to support these functions - fault free

questions, queries, real-time responding, note-taking, predicting/hypothesising,

hypertext and cooperative dialogue. Although published over a decade ago, Hannafin's

(1989:178) conclusions provide a useful guide for understanding interactivity:

It is no longer adequate to simply describe interactions in terms of either input technology employed or the physical characteristics of the responses made ... W e need a richer understanding of the psychological requirements associated with instructional tasks and responses, and a sense for h o w to extend design science beyond the methods that have evolved through the years.

3-83

One approach by which this may be understood can be seen through a recent analysis of

the benefits of interactivity to learning that was based on the schema model of human

memory, one where information is stored in a web of interconnected nodes. "The

strength of knowledge relies not simply on the number of nodes that exist, but more on

the quality and number of interconnections between the nodes" (Parrish, 1996:2). In

consolidating this idea, the schema model of human memory is adopted that enables a

multi-dimensional web of interconnected nodes of information. However, it is

acknowledged that to progress towards a meaningful interactive experience requires the

interconnections as well as a contextual learning environment, as detailed in the

following relationship between interactivity and interconnections (Parrish, 1996:2):

Interconnections are built by using information to solve problems in unfamiliar situations and by comparing new information to existing information. In the context of instruction, interactivity encourages deeper cognitive processing that builds interconnections ... What the computer contributes is the ability to create interactions that will be consistent for all learners, and yet individualised for each learner.

However, Parrish (1996:4) also suggests that the interaction must be linked to the

instructional design process and the respective learning objectives or outcomes:

It is important that the level of interaction match the level of instructional objective, and also ... that objectives that call for more complex tasks are met by performing interactions that engage deep processing ... However, interactions requiring lower levels of processing can be useful to achieve so called sub-objectives of the instruction, those that build to the more complex main objectives. (Parrish, 1996:4).

Given the complex nature of the individual learner, this argument appears inconsistent

as an objective-based lesson is prescribing from the teacher's perspective what should

be learned, which may not enable a learner to developing their own knowledge through

experimentation and construction. Nevertheless, Parrish (1996) provides a description

of the character of an interaction, which emphasises its link between the learner and a

meaningful experience:

• Level of cognitive processing in learning - remembering, organising, analysing,

generating, integrating and evaluating.

• Format (structure) of the interaction - at the micro-level, this relates to objective

questions, open-ended questions, note making and navigation. At the macro-

level advanced strategies such as drill & practice, tutorial, games and

simulations can be integrated.

3-84

• Mode of interaction (method or medium) - for the user-fo-computer, this

includes click, text entry, click & drag and drawing on screen. For the computer-

to-user, this can include (at the micro level) text, graphics, audio, video and

animation and (at the macro level) tutoring, coaching and tracking.

These characteristics of interactivity intersect with those proposed by a number of

analysts, including Gery (1987), Alessi & Trollip (1991), Schwier & Misanchuk (1993)

and Boyle (1997). Linking the elements of control, production and meaning, Parrish

(1996:5) concludes that:

Choice of format and mode do not necessarily constrain the level of cognitive processing that can be demanded by the interaction. For instance, while objective question formats and button clicking modes are easier to develop, interactions that employ them can require even the deepest levels of cognitive processing if well designed ... designers of instruction will want to consider their mix of modes, formats and levels of interactivity in order to make judicious use of their resources.

Continuing to emphasise the importance of learning styles in the learning process,

Schmeck (1988) suggested that learning is experiential (or phenomenological), defined

by individuals engaged in learning, and categorised in different ways because

everyone's experience of learning is not the same. Schmeck's (1988) notion of

conceptions of learning focuses on the variation in students' interpretations of their

experiences of learning, where "learning strategies are combinations of cognitive

(thinking) skills implemented when a situation is perceived as one demanding learning"

(Schmeck, 1988:17).

The concept that interactivity is a process by which knowledge is encoded is also

supported by the benefits arising from the developments in computer-mediated

communication and the facilitation of collaborative activities between individuals

and/or groups of learners.

Interactivity as COLLABORATION

Gilbert & Moore (1998) focus their discussion on the growth of web-based or on-line

learning. In identifying possible types of instruction as directive, content interactive,

directed collaboration, collaborative and social they portray the various influences that

impact on the learning process, as illustrated in Figure 3.2.

3-85

Directive Content Directed Collaborative Interactive Collaboration

Instruction Type

Social

•Teacher Control "••Learner Control Group Influence

Figure 3.2: Interaction of Teacher, Learner and Group Influences (Gilbert & Moore, 1998:34)

Where the environment involves teacher control, its influence has effectiveness where

collaboration is limited; where the learner has control, the influence of that control

increases with collaborative forms of learning but decreases, as the group becomes

larger. A s the course designer relinquishes teacher and/or learner control, the

collaborative, group influence begins to increase. Overall, interactivity becomes a

dynamic entity dependent on teacher, learner and group characteristics.

Gilbert & Moore (1998) also identify the need to be able to use software development

tools to create these environments as an important issue in adding value to computer-

based collaborative learning. However, they note that these tools are growing in

complexity and therefore taking advantage of the potential of the technology to enable

forms of interactive learning continues to be problematic. This issue reflects the

problems facing teachers and trainers in the early days of C A I and C B T , where

enthusiastic developers were restricted by a lack of programming skills. A range of

template-based tools was provided to simplify the development process, but those very

tools limited the structure and performance of the interactions created.

Another aspect of collaborative learning is the extent to which distance plays a role in

the success of the overall process. Moore (1991) developed the concept of transactional

distance theory that proposed the more a teacher and student were separated the less

effective the learning experience. More recently, this concept received significant

3-86

discussion on the 1FETS on-line discussion list (1FETS, 1999). W h e n considered in

relation to C E L , it is possible this transactional distance can be an issue. While learner

and computer are in close physical proximity, the extent to which there is distance

between teacher, content and learner will diminish the effectiveness of the interactions.

A recent research study also suggested that attitudes towards usage of web-sites are

positively related to the perceived interactivity of that site (Center for Interactive

Advertising, 1999). While this particular examination was addressing issues of web

marketing and advertising, there is an indication that users have an expectation of being

able to interact. Matching that expectation with appropriate interactions is one of the

challenges facing designers and developers of educational technology applications.

Interactivity as TAXONOMY

Another important construct of interactivity is the different ways in which it can be

interpreted or classified and the extent to which these differences impact on the

effectiveness of C E L applications. This section addresses the various taxonomies of

interactivity that have been derived and their impact on understanding the affects of

interactivity. One of the initial taxonomies was derived by Jonassen (1985), with a

specific focus on adaptive lesson designs. Structured in three dimensions (levels of

interactivity, internal adaptations and external adaptations), the success of these was

predicted to result from pedagogical rather than technological considerations.

Taxonomy of Interactivity

(Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993)

Levels

Reactive

Proactive

Mutual

Functions

Confirmation

Pacing

Navigation

Inquiry

Elaboration

Transactions

Keyboard, Touch Panel

Pointing Device

Voice

Levels of Interactivity

(Sims, 1997 a)

Levels

Object

Linear

Hierarchical

Support

Update

Construct

Reflective

Simulation

Hyperlinked Non-Immersive Contextual

Immersive Virtual

Dimensions of Interactivity

(Aldrich etal, 1998)

Visibility & Accessibility

Visualise content in different

ways Access content in different

Manipulatability & Annotatability

Construct content

Make notes Creativity & Combinability

Create new content by combining media

Experimentation & Testing

Run a simulation

Build a model

Table 3.2: Classifications of Interactivity

3-87

More recent classifications have integrated various aspects of interactivity, using

terminology such as functions (Schwier & Misanchuck, 1993), levels (Sims, 1997a) and

dimensions (Aldrich et al, 1998), to describe the features of interactivity. These latter

taxonomies are expanded in Table 3.2.

Schwier & Misanchuk (1993) combined the reactive-coactive forms proposed by

Rhodes & Azbell (1985) with the five basic functions identified by Hannafin (1989) and

the physical transactions available through computer technology. They also added a

third form or level of mutual interactivity, to represent:

Artificial intelligence or virtual reality designs, where the learner becomes a fully franchised citizen in the instructional environment... the learner and system are mutually adaptive ... capable of changing in reaction to encounters with the other. (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993:12).

This vision of interactivity is problematic because the potential of artificial intelligence

or intelligent tutoring systems have yet to be realised, perhaps because of the

complexity of the software development, or perhaps because technology will have

difficulty replicating the human condition. However the idea of mutual adaptation is

consistent with the link between communication and interactivity and is further

considered in Chapter 8.

Sims (1997a) undertook a different analysis of interactivity from the perspective of both

the programmer and instructional designer. The levels of interactivity identified were

designed to demonstrate h o w more complex interactivity required more complex

understandings of programming, with the factors of engagement and control determined

as significant attributes of the overall interactive process. Schaffer & Hannafin (1986)

also suggested that more complex interactivity is likely to produce better learning

outcomes. This further emphasises the need for the design and development team to

include an appropriate mix of educational, media and programming skills to enable both

complex and effective interactions. Nevertheless, these levels focused on observable

aspects of the interactive process, and as Draper (1996) observed in relation to an earlier

version of Sims' (1997a) taxonomy, the important issue for learning may be with the

unobserved, cognitive process resulting from the interaction rather than those readily

observable.

3-88

Aldrich et al (1998) took up this option in developing a framework by which educators

could assess the educational value of C D - R O M applications. Their methodology

involved asking a group of teachers to identify aspects of interactivity considered

important for primary school teaching, which were classified on dimensions of

motivation/engagement, learning style and media comparisons. As a result of their

analysis they derived a set of dimensions of interactivity (see Table 3.2) that emphasise

similar conclusions to those of Hannafin (1989):

.. moving the emphasis away from the level of physical interactivity (ie. button presses and mouse clicks) to a consideration of cognitive activity (ie. the learning activities which are supported when interacting with the software). (Aldrich et al, 1998:331).

One of the interesting aspects of this study and classification is the perspective from

which it was derived - that of the teacher. While it is vital that teachers feel confident in

the resources they plan to use in classroom activities, if there is an emphasis on

cognitive processes and the individual then it is difficult to predict the learning benefits

that might accrue from a seemingly "ineffective" C E L application. To what extent will

the teacher's attitude to the product affect the learner's response to the material

delivered and the interactions generated?

This observation pertains to how we view the educational process - is it one where the

teacher provides the knowledge or one where the learner constructs knowledge?

Independent of age or environment, these issues will perhaps play the major role in the

success of C E L applications. They are designed ostensibly for independent use, and

therefore the learner often has no additional resources other than those provided in the

application. Enabling learners to gain maximum benefit is the goal, but who can best

determine what form of interaction will be preferable - the learner or the teacher?

Nevertheless, for people working to support the educational process, whether in primary

schools, universities or business, there remains a need for assessing and interpreting the

worth of CEL. The ability to measure these products for interactivity and their potential

impact on learning is one means to achieve this.

Interactivity as MEASURE

In the training environment, and from the perspective of the commercial development

company, "a good interaction offers students the opportunity to perform a required task;

3-89

frequent (60 interactions per hour of C B T ) and meaningful interactions make C B T

effective and efficient" (InterCom, 1992). In suggesting that boredom and frustration

result from rigidity of responses or lack of navigational flexibility, Gery (1987: 23)

declares that "there's an optimum number of alternatives that has yet to be established,

somewhere between one and ten. Experimentation and evaluation of learner reactions

will tell us more".

Conversely, an observation cited by Filipczak (1996) suggests that users should do

something every 15 to 30 seconds, which equates to 120 to 240 actions per hour. The

same observer also advocated limiting video clips to 30 seconds, otherwise the learner's

attention may be lost. The difficulty with this form of design criteria is that they can be

taken as prescriptions for successful training, rather than guidelines, resulting in

interactivity for its o w n sake not for the particular learning task. More importantly, it is

quite possible a learner could passively watch a video or display without physically

interacting and yet be engaged with the content and developing knowledge and skills.

However, the application must also provide the necessary options for the learner to

interrupt that process and continue with their learning task.

Rather than accepting this form of prescribed interactivity, Stouppe (1998) set about

investigating the meaning of interactivity, specifically in the context of training

applications and selecting the appropriate off-the-shelf courses. Using Hannafin's

(1992) continuum of user activity and Clark's (1989) guidelines for training-transfer, he

differentiated the following categories for classifying and scoring interactivity.

Analysing each display of an application using these categories creates an action score

where "the higher the number, the stronger the course's emphasis on interactions that

truly involve the learner" (Stouppe, 1998:22).

• Content-Specific Constructive - interactions where learners actively construct

content (organise and m a p their o w n knowledge) score 7 points.

• Content-Specific Conveyance - interactions where learners make content-related

decisions (try out their o w n knowledge) scores 5 points.

• Content-Specific Supportive - interactions where learner actions reinforce the

message (assists their understanding) score 3 points.

3-90

• Content-Specific Enriching - interactions where the learner makes selections

(information access options) score 1 point.

• Baseline - interactions providing enriching or supporting navigational buttons

score 0 points.

However, these concepts reflect a content-driven approach to the delivery of training

and subjective decisions by the trainer, presupposing that the information provided on

the screen by the designer/trainer will be interpreted by the learner/trainee in a particular

and desirable manner. If the learner has not entered into a dialogue and does not have

overall control of the learning process, the perceived benefits of this activity m a y not be

realised, and the score not as accurate a predictor of success.

So while Stouppe (1998) provides a means by which trainers can assess the potential

effectiveness of third-party C B T applications, the extent to which this potential will be

realised with the target group of trainees can only be determined through evaluation of

the extent to which learning outcomes were achieved. A missing element in this

instance would appear to be the ways in which the individual learner will interpret the

application as a whole and respond to the interactions in particular. Rather than just the

trainer scoring the product, the learner's observations could also be included.

This example also highlights some of the issues confronting the various educational

providers. Whereas the teachers discussed by Aldrich et al (1998) were examining

resources to support their classroom activities, the trainers in the above environment had

to make choices on purchasing training software. Other organisations may be involved

with the creation of C D - R O M training materials whereas tertiary institutions m a y be

integrating web-based resources with on-line teaching initiatives. Interactivity is in one

sense constant to all environments, in terms of the human-computer interaction, but in

terms of generating meaningful, cognitive interactions it is a separate issue requiring

ongoing evaluation and investigation.

Summary

The issues identified in the previous discussion included the control provided to the

learner, the extent to which the program might adapt to an individual learner and means

by which interactions support both participation and the creation of meaning. In

3-91

generating environments for individual or collaborative learning, issues of producing

and measuring effective interactions were also considered. Embracing these issues and

demonstrating the complexity of interactivity are the different and evolving taxonomies

that have been developed to provide a context for better understanding its position in

C E L environments. Nevertheless, the argument has presented a case that interactivity

has yet to reach its potential in consistently providing effective learning encounters, and

the following analysis considers additional factors which may contribute to the

resolution of this dilemma.

INTERACTIVITY AND NARRATIVE

Overview

Interactivity is perceived as both a function and outcome of the learning experience. It

can be a manifestation of answering questions or an ingredient for successful learning.

However, the complexity and sometimes-fractured descriptions of interactivity continue

to provoke debate as to its essence. Because interactivity involves, at least theoretically,

an interchange between learner and content, a relationship can be predicted between the

effectiveness of computer-based interactive experiences and a design strategy focusing

on storytelling, play and narrative (Plowman, 1996a). Whitby (1998) reinforces this

position by claiming:

Storytelling and narrative lie at the heart of all successful communication. Crude, explicit, button pushing interaction breaks the spell of engagement and makes it hard to present complex information that unfolds in careful sequence.

In this scenario, the problems confronting educational technology developers are clearly

defined - h o w do you develop computer-based environments to engage the learner with

effective instructional communication without generating what might be termed

interactive interference! Identifying the concepts of storytelling and narrative as critical

determinants of communication, and consequently narrative, may provide a context in

which to assess the impact of narrative on both engagement and learning.

Interactive Challenges

In noting that complexity comes with the freedom associated with learner control,

Kirsch (1997) asserts that additional restrictions result from the scripting or

3-92

programming of applications which require the user to adapt to their structure. Kirsch

(1997:81) observed that:

Since interactive interfaces ought to foster this type of coordination between improvisation and planning w e need to discover better theories of what is involved in the dynamic control of inquiry, line of thought, and action more generally. W e need to discover more open-ended models of coherence and narrative structure.

While acknowledging that one solution is to scaffold a learning environment to support

rather than direct, Kirsch (1997) argued for an analysis of the nature of interactivity in

terms of reciprocity between the two parties, designer and user, which is reminiscent of

the mutual interactivity proposed by Schwier & Misanchuk (1993). However, achieving

this continues to be a challenge as "computer interfaces are rarely interactive because

the programs that drive them are rarely intelligent enough to behave as tacit partners"

(Kirsch, 1997:83).

From a different perspective, Bardini (1997) compared the concepts of association and

connection in relation to interaction with hypertext and hypermedia environments,

observing that most implementations to date have been associationist, extending the

argument to consider the relationship of the main protagonists (agents) in the interactive

process. Ascribing the process of delegation and inscription to both the designer and

user, "the degree of interactivity of the interface can be seen as the relative opportunity

for both user and designer to take part in the two dimensions of the representation

process" (Bardini, 1997:12). This focus on the two major parties in the C E L

environment - designer and learner - also links to the gulfs of execution and evaluation

considered in relation to human-computer interaction (Norman, 1986). H o w this

relationship might be linked with the ideal of the interface as a socially constructed

narrative (Bardini, 1997) leads to considerations of the user and designer operating in

mutual engagement.

These observations suggest that developing applications in such a way that the learner is

integrated into some form of narrative may lead to implementations that reduce the gulf-

potential between user and designer.

The Impact of Narrative

As a continually evolving field, educational technology is often subject to creativity and

experimentation as the most legitimate means by which its potential can be realised. At

3-93

the same time there is considerable evidence to support the conclusion that w e do not

yet fully understand its similarity to, or differences from, current means of educational

communication (Plowman, 1996b; Kirsch, 1997). M u c h of the development has

assumed that the technology is a means to automate forms of current practice, and this

may in part be responsible for the assessment that educational technology has failed to

live up to its original promise. In other words, should the implementation of educational

resources on a computer-based medium be a replication of current media, or are we

dealing with a new environment that has not yet been fully explored in terms of

interface to, and interaction with, its human users?

There is a growing body of literature and discussion which supports the latter position,

pointing to the need to reassess the way in which w e conceptualise the use of

interactivity in educational multimedia applications. One of the most interesting aspects

of this research is the comparison of traditional story-telling techniques (narrative and

play) with those presented through the technological medium. While the complex

framework which surrounds the study of narrative and story telling should not be

trivialised, in the context of the growing demand for technology-based solutions to

learning, the possibilities provide a novel and refreshing perspective.

Narrative can be viewed from a simplistic context of representing a linear storyline

(Plowman, 1996a). It can also be perceived in the way it is deconstructed in terms of

how the story is told, the way it is received, what meanings it can have and the specific

social, cultural, gendered and technological context in which it is told (Humphreys,

1997a). A n additional facet of this analysis is the assertion that narrative enables

construction of mental models of the situation and environment (Bower & Morrow,

1990). Therefore it is suggested that narrative may assist meaning, reduce the impact of

interactive interference and provide the necessary framework to promote learning

amongst diverse groups of learners.

But in what way can narrative, as currently understood, relate (or integrate) with the

values of an interactive world? Josephson (1997) suggests that w e are still learning to

define new media literacy, and by defining it w e are also creating it. If w e can define an

effective interactive narrative, then w e can begin to project what will happen to that

narrative as the audience moves from being "actively engaged on an interpretive level to

3-94

actively intervening in its representation" (Humphreys, 1997a). In a comprehensive

analysis of narrative and interactivity, Plowman (1996a:92) observes that:

Narrative coherence is identified here with a lack of redundancy and a fixed sequence. Interactive multimedia ( I M M ) programmes challenge these traditional definitions of narrative because it can be suspended or altered at discrete decision points, the foci of interactivity, and a rearrangement of discrete elements gives rise to new text and new meanings. While the concepts of wholeness, unity and coherence of meanings are not fashionable in a post-modern world, in educational multimedia... the notion of multiple interpretations has different implications, particularly for comprehension and cognition.

While "narrative isn't just a shaping device: it helps us think, remember, communicate,

and make sense of ourselves and the world" (Plowman, 1996a:3), when contrasted with

its implementation in an interactive environment, its efficacy is uncertain. So can

narrative and interactivity co-exist? Plowman (1996b) argues that interactivity is at odds

with our expectations of traditional narrative forms and communication. However, by

examining techniques for measuring interactivity, and comparing these with the basic

narrative structures, the potential for the new media to combine and incorporate

effective narrative was shown, with young learners at least, to provide meaningful

narrative as well as being beneficial to learning.

In a contrasting view of interactivity, Hilf (1996:7) states that "through the interrupted

narrative, the learner learns more about the story and characters through their own

interaction". Whereas Plowman (1996a, 1996b) observed that interactivity interrupted

the narrative flow, Hilf (1996) declares the opposite. Clearly there are disparate views

on narrative and interactivity, and their combined impact on the communication of

content. Whether an interactive device contributes to engagement and meaning or

generates an interruption to that process is the underlying reason for considering the

potential of narrative to enhance the overall C E L process.

To differentiate the options for narrative, Hilf (1996) described four discrete structures:

• Linear - where the user is guided from beginning to middle to end.

• Interrupted - where the narrative is halted while problems, tests or some other

form of interaction is implemented).

• Branching - where the user has the option to choose from a range of paths.

• Object-oriented - where elements within the narrative can be controlled or

defined by the user, thereby impacting on other users within the system.

Comparing these with interactive learning environments, the branching form of

narrative is consistent with menu selection and the interrupted narrative with the tutorial

model, where pre-designed sequences incorporate interactivity in a question-response-

feedback loop. The object-oriented narrative conforms to the simulation and game

format and is consistent with the delegation-inscription factors, at least in terms of the

user, as proposed by Bardini (1997).

From Narrative to Play

So does narrative interfere with or promote engagement during an interactive learning

session? Humphreys (1997a) suggests that giving the audience (or user) choices can

disrupt the sequence of events, affecting the final closure of the narrative. From another

perspective, "as the level of interactivity increases and the amount of agency for the

user structured into the piece increases, the amount of 'retelling' done decreases"

(Humpherys, 1997a:6).

To provide a solution to this disruption, Humpherys (1997b) explored the concept of

play and play theory, which she suggests are closely related to narrative, noting that to

maximise audience engagement through interactivity requires consideration of agency,

narrative structure, emotional engagement and construction of meaning. To illustrate

this relationship between narrative and play interactivity, I prepared Figure 3.3.

Narrative

Interaction Interaction as Play

Figure 3.3: Narrative, Play and Interactivity

The left-hand sample of an interactive sequence represents a narrative regularly

intersected or interrupted by an interaction whereas the right-hand sample depicts a

constant interaction between user and story. Although play in terms of the instructional

game has long been recognised as a valid model for educational technology (eg. Alessi

& Trollip, 1991), its implementation has not often been contextualised in a narrative

3-96

structure. B y integrating play elements such as friendship, risk, problem solving,

competition and creativity, Humpherys (1997b:9) suggests that "play theory offers a

framework which accommodates the audience or user into the process of engagement

with interactive media in ways that narrative theory finds difficult". More importantly,

in the context of educational applications using multimedia, Humpherys (1997b: 11)

speculates that:

Interactivity produces for the user of media a different relationship to story. This shift in relationship may be able to be framed as a shift from narrative, as an experience of recounting a story, to play, as an experience of enacting a story.

The notion that multimedia applications for learning should focus on either narrative or

play to enhance engagement implies that the interactivity provided to users must

therefore be integrated in such a way that it not only provides opportunity to reinforce

the specific learning objectives, but also to maintain the user's participation in the story.

Multilinear Narrative

Johnson & Olivia (1998) use the term multi-linear to differentiate the traditional linear

narrative with non-linear interactive multimedia, which implies a range of equally

plausible paths that m a y be taken through an application. It was also suggested, with

respect to internet sites specifically, that the notion of beginnings and endings should be

replaced with the concepts of entrance and exit. In discussing the relationship between

the content and the medium, Johnson & Olivia (1998) cite the work of Liestol

(1994:105):

The screen occupies a third position, between the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time. The screen and what it presents is a manifestation of the present, between past and future. Therefore the movement from space to time and the reduction from three dimensions to one both halt at the position of the screen and its flatland of two dimensions. Obviously the design and composition of elements on the screen are of central importance to any critical study of hypermedia texts.

This introduces a further variable to the equation of effective interaction, where the user

has to develop the skill to either adapt to these changing dimensions or create a new

dimension by which they interpret the technology interface.

Beyond Narrative?

Interactivity is often portrayed as the crucial element of the new technology, and yet

recent research has demonstrated that there is still much to understand about the ways in

3-97

which the interactive process facilities access to technology, especially in the context of

computer-based learning applications. As Plowman (1996a: 102-103) states:

disruption of the narrative is strongest at the foci of interactivity... (which) should be considered in terms of h o w they can be integrated into the overall narrative and h o w they can be used as a way of stimulating interest in the unfolding narrative ... by considering the interrelationship of narrative, linearity and interactivity and their design implications w e can help learners to make sense of interactive multimedia.

It is therefore our challenge to develop applications that minimise the potential for

interactive interference. B y relating the concepts of narrative and play in association

with the links between the designer and user, a model of adaptive applications that cater

for both designer and user is proposed as a means to enhance the interactive process.

The link between narrative, memory and comprehension has been studied extensively

(Thorndyke, 1977; Bower & Morrow, 1990). However, apart from the initial work by

Plowman (1996a, 1997) on narrative, there has been little research on the consequences

of its impact on computer-based learning applications, although acknowledged as an

important area (Waraich, 1998). Plowman (1997) does demonstrate that people working

in group activities can be impeded by the structure of the accompanying educational

software. Laurillard (1998) also reports that the degree of narrative structure affects the

learner's comprehension, given that when such structures are absent from applications

the learner's interpretation of the material can be affected.

Narrative would therefore appear to be a significant element in addressing interactivity

and CEL. In developing this idea, the benefits accruing from a narrative perspective

have also been linked to the metaphor of theatre as a means to better understand the

computer, and the ways in which w e can interact with it. The rationale for identifying an

association between theatre and interactivity is considered next.

INTERACTIVITY ON STAGE

The advantages for linking the concept of narrative to interactivity can be associated

with other aspects of performance, such as theatre, illusion and magic, as introduced in

Chapter 1. The following discussion identifies selections of work relevant to this area

and the implications for developing more effective interactive encounters.

The notion of linking education to the world of theatre is by no means novel. In

suggesting that w e all take on roles and masks, Hodgkinson (1967:3) argues that:

As w e develop as persons, w e develop a sophistication and sensitivity to what is the "proper" role behaviour for various groups w e must meet... W e are in a sense able to predict the consequences of various behaviour alternatives on others without actually performing them, and can select the best role and performance ... This process is seen as "dramatic rehearsal" ... and is as complex as the relationship of actor and audience on stage.

In the context of education and social change, these concepts of performance, roles,

identity and cues provide a focus for the learning environment:

As on stage, w e are constantly sending out signals to those around us telling them how w e wish to behave ... education at all levels is constantly faced with the problem of correcting misunderstood or unintentional cues" (Hodgkinson, 1967:22).

To what extent therefore do the CEL applications provide learners with a set of

confusing cues, and in what ways are learners allowed to play a role when working with

educational technology? Hodgkinson (1967) argues that being unaware of role playing

can damage educational goals because learners may not be able to participate in the

learner process effectively. The concept of roles, cues, theatre and performance hold

some clues to taking advantage of computer-based technology for learning.

The major force for linking computer-based narrative with elements of theatre comes

from Laurel (1991), w h o cast the computer in the role of theatre, with the user as either

an active member of an audience, or participating as an actor. From the learning

perspective the task of integrating the learning with the narrative may better be

understood by focusing on the learner as an active participant in the performance. For

example, this process was seen as beneficial in the context of language learning:

By explicitly casting the language learner as actor (or other), a more playful and reflexive context for taking performative risks becomes possible. At the same time, the learner is pressed to assume responsibility for communicative acts that involve skill building at multiple levels of performance (phonological, kinetic, pragmatic), and that include but go beyond propositional knowledge. (Quinn, 1997:1).

In relation to this, Piesk & Trogemann (1998) examined the inclusion of virtual actors

within non-linear narrative structures. In this case, the concept appeared more related to

the integration of agents, where a 'virtual' character is used to provide a personality for

the computer and to enhance the communication with learners. While this was

considered in the context of school-based education, the issue remains as to what role it

might play in more content-specific training applications. Is it sufficient to provide an

3-99

agent to support the learner, maintaining an active-teacher (agent) and passive-learner

environment, or are there techniques and strategies by which the learner can adapt to a

more integrated and active role in the overall interactive experience?

Continuing with the theme of performance and theatre, Tognazzini (1999) highlighted

the work of magicians who, as illusionists and performers, might provide a means to

better understand the software development process. Citing Fitzkee (1943) he identified

the following important elements Tognazzini (1999:3):

Character. N o chef would prepare a dish without seasoning. Character is the seasoning which makes your entertainment dish palatable. Everything has character, even though the character be weak and uninteresting. Your job is to develop a quality of character in your routine that makes it tasty to the spectator. Otherwise you have a mere assembly of ingredients-tasteless, unsavory, unappetizing, lacking zest.

Smoothness: Perfect smoothness is necessary to any routine. In no other way will your act seem finished to the spectators. Smoothness, which is a word meaning you have planned thoroughly and well, gives confidence both to the performer and to his

audience.

Get to the point. B e Brief. Keep interesting them. Quit before they've had enough.

In terms of interactive learning, these elements place the onus on the designer and

developer to produce a performance that is more than just a set of ingredients. It must

be planned so well that the audience (learner) is engaged and captivated and the

performer (program) should not prolong the delivery or give the audience a chance to

get bored. In extending this idea, Tognazzini (1999:4) addresses the concept of illusion

in the software production process and the role of the design team:

I propose that there is a "threshold of believability," a point at which careful design and meticulous attention to detail have been sufficient to arouse in the spectator or user a belief that the illusion is real. The exact point will vary by person and even by mood, so

w e must exceed it sufficiently to ensure believability.

If the learner believes the illusion created by the educational environment, then the

interactions will become an integral component of that illusion rather than being

manifested as external controls for an environment being observed. Depending on the

ideas of the developer, this could extend to the learner becoming part of the

performance - an assistant to the magician. This concept is confirmed by the remark of

Crockford (1988: 272) - "interaction should have more to do with taking part than

making decisions". It would appear then that interactivity as taking part is not simply

about making choices but through the learning in some way becoming part of the

narrative, story or illusion.

3-100

However, in an interesting comparison, and reminiscent of the comments cited by

Bartolome (1998), Cameron (1998:1) challenges the association of interactivity and

narrative, suggesting that the linear story with narrator authority contradicts the

intervention possibilities of interactivity:

The consequences may be far-reaching and profound. Can a simulator, or an interactive construct, usefully adopt a narrative form? Will there be a general transformation from a culture of stories to a culture which expresses its truths through an immersive, interactive medium, - the shared experience of the simulator?

The issue here is whether the computer-based, interactive application can take the form

of various traditional, culturally determined narratives or whether other forms of

structure (such as play, performance or magic) are better metaphors for the human-

computer interactive experience. Even so, Cameron (1998:10) argues that

Like any other form of representation, interactivity is an illusion. It puts itself in the place of something that isn't there. What is the absent referent of interactivity? If interactivity promises the spectator freedom and choice, it is precisely the lack of such freedom and choice that interactivity conceals.

This suggests that interactivity, despite claims to the contrary, is disguising the control

and adaptation that it is purported to provide, especially in the educational environment.

More importantly, it highlights the ongoing difficulty that people working within the

interactive development field have with the very concept of interactivity.

Shedroff (1994) also emphasised the importance of linking theatre with effective

interactivity, specifically in relation to the way interactive multimedia technology had

been implemented within the commercial sector. After identifying similar issues to

those addressed in this discussion relating to the nature and effectiveness of

interactivity, he concluded that:

About the only people who are explicitly trained in the skills of interaction are those in the performing arts: dancers, actors, singers, comedians, improvisational actors, and musicians. However, these fields are hardly seen as complementary or valid courses of study in computer science, multimedia, and even design programs. Yet the experience and knowledge that performers can bring to these disciplines are exactly the answers to the questions that should be asked. Grants for programs that try to explore these issues with the help of many different disciplines would help speed the development of answers badly needed in this industry. (Shedroff, 1994:10)

The use of concepts such as narrative, play, theatre and performance are a potential

source for addressing the complex nature of interactivity. From the design perspective

this might involve rethinking the way the learner is positioned within the learning

3-101

environment presented. From the learner's perspective the way in which they relate to

the environment and other objects within that environment may change in such a way to

provide them with more participation through taking on a role within the interactive

performance. Developing an understanding of h o w this might be achieved and its

potential for enhancing interactivity within C E L is the challenge being confronted by

this study.

CONCLUSION

Interactivity can be perceived from the learner's perspective in terms of control,

participation, collaboration, adaptation, individualisation and meaning. From the design

and development perspective it can be viewed as a production element, a taxonomy or a

measure of success. At the same time, this multifaceted nature of interactivity continues

to be debated in terms of its impact on the learner and the learning process.

The potential of narrative structures to enhance the overall effectiveness of interactivity

is one possible solution. Introducing the metaphor of theatre and performance to

computer-based interactive learning provides an additional dimension for examining the

interactive experience.

The ways in which contemporary applications have addressed these constructs of

interactivity and the extent to which narrative and performance might impact on the

effectiveness of interactivity is the focus of the third research question:

How do elements of interactivity affect product useability and

effectiveness?

The following chapter introduces the research methodology appropriate to focus on this

research question in addition to those questions posed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

The research for this study was conducted using three discrete procedures - a survey, a

modified pile-sort and an observation - to address each of the research questions posed,

and these are discussed in detail in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 respectively. This chapter

provides the background and framework by which the methods, results and conclusions

for each of these three procedures can be interpreted.

As described in the preceding chapters, a range of theoretical and technological

conditions influence computer-based learning. In particular, the interactive nature of

this learning resource has been subjected to scrutiny as both a function of technology

and a determinant of learning. The first section of this chapter focuses on the major

research issues that impact on a study of interactivity, ranging from the external

physical actions associated with learner control and navigation to structures of the

application that enable effective interactive experiences. This analysis includes the

impact of changes in educational practice and computer technology on interactivity.

Based on this discussion, the need to develop our understandings of the role played by

interactivity in computer-based learning resources is detailed. This provides the

background for the research questions being addressed, which focus on individual

expectations of interactivity, the perceived impact of interactive elements on learning

and the extent to which interactive constructs support engagement and communication

with the learner.

The second section of this chapter provides the rationale for adopting a primarily

qualitative approach for this study of interactivity. This involves identifying the

characteristics of the research problem that are peculiar to a qualitative approach and the

associated techniques adopted within this specific study. This is supported by an

overview of the research process and the activities undertaken during the study. In

addition, the boundaries of the study are discussed with respect to the implications for

interpretation and future investigations.

4-103

Because the research was conducted in three segments, the background of the

participants w h o contributed to these segments is presented in the third section of this

chapter. This analysis focuses on their characteristics and the subsequent implications

for data analysis and interpretation within the study.

RESEARCH ISSUES

Background

Interactivity in the context of computer-assisted learning remains somewhat of an

enigma. The word interactive has been adopted to denote value in computer-based

applications - whether C D - R O M or web focused, and is n o w regularly used to describe

developments in television. I recently heard one commentator observe that with

interactive television, people would only be limited by their imagination - the same

phrase used to advocate computer-based learning only a few years ago. W e therefore

have a paradox whereby interactivity is shown to be an integral part of the learning

process and yet unable to be adequately described in computer-based environments.

Since the initial realisation that computers might play a role in the educational process,

research projects have been undertaken to assess the various benefits that computer

technology had or would have on the educational process. Some of the early studies

included public funded evaluations of the P L A T O and TICCIT Computer-Based

Education systems (eg. Magidson, 1978). While significant investments were made in

the development of computer-based teaching materials (courseware), these evaluations

found little evidence that computer-based educational resources made a significant

difference to the overall effectiveness of education. Subsequent meta-analyses of

individual research studies also supported the position that while C E L applications

could reduce the time to complete a set piece of work, there was little evidence to show

significant affects on learning (eg. Kulik et al, 1983).

While the field has been examined extensively, interactivity as a concept has not. Using

the descriptor computer assisted instruction, a search of the ERIC database identified

over 19,000 articles and reports, of which 46 used the word interactivity in the title. A

similar percentage of research into interactivity is demonstrated by the educational

technology dissertations reported by Caffarella (1999); of the 2689 documented, only 2

used interactivity in the title. While many of the different interpretations of interactivity

4-104

have been considered (learner control, individualisation, adaptation), there remains a

dearth of research specifically directed at interactivity as a concept in itself.

Overall the research studies have reported ambivalent findings amidst criticism and

debate on the way in which media has been studied and the validity of the research itself

(Clark, 1983; Kozma, 1991; Reeves, 1993). More recently, Russell (1999) identified a

series of studies reporting no-significant difference where technology was used as an

intervention in the educational process. Nevertheless, C E L has developed a niche in a

range of educational and training environments, and the development of the Internet and

World Wide W e b as the de facto communication and business medium for many

institutions and corporations has seen the perceived value of on-line learning

acknowledged throughout all learning environments.

In a recent reappraisal of the research condition, Reeves (1999:19) maintained his

earlier position that "much of the research and evaluation of the effectiveness of CBI

and other forms of interactive learning continues to be plagued by fundamental flaws

that render much of this literature little more than pseudoscience". His proposed strategy

to make interactive learning work better is for a research paradigm focusing on

developmental research that incorporates a mix of quantitative, qualitative and critical

methods. This is consistent with the approach used in this study.

More specific to the research undertaken in CEL are the assumptions made concerning

both the interactive nature and the intrinsic interactivity of the applications used as the

object of study. For example, research studies that develop a computer-based

application to be used as a component of the research process do not explicitly address

the validity of the applications as a learning resource. These applications are developed

with specific characteristics such as different branching structures (Paolucci, 1998),

discrete introductory displays (Cavalier & Klein, 1998) or as the content delivery

medium (Jakobsottir & Hooper, 1995). However, the effectiveness of the interactive

experience is not included in an assessment of contributing factors to the results.

My purpose here is not to criticise these studies or query their findings, but to highlight

that few studies, to m y knowledge, have used interactivity as either the focus or as one

of the dependent variables. The various reactive, proactive or possibly coactive

interactive facilities built into the product were not explicitly identified as influencing

4-105

the learning outcomes. The importance of this observation is based on a literature that

clearly projects interactivity as the central and significant element of applying

computer-technology to learning, and yet has done little to examine it as a construct in

its o w n right within the research agenda.

This focus is especially significant given the on-going investment by educational and

business organisations in developing stand-alone computer-based learning resources.

For example, the Australian A r m y is currently investing in excess of $1,000,000 in the

development of C D - R O M training resources as components within their broader

training operations (Reinbott, 2000). Investigating the ways people have come to

understand the concept of interactivity and its implementation will not only enhance our

understanding of its impact but also provide a framework for its effective design,

development, implementation and, commercially, return on investment.

The Research Problem

From the literature reviewed, a number of conditions can be identified that justify

ongoing research into the concept of interactivity. These include technological

developments that enable new forms of human-computer interaction, shifts in the way

interactivity is understood, recent research studies focusing specifically on interactivity,

the recognition that interactivity is difficult to define and the challenge to make

interactive C E L resources work more effectively.

First, technological developments have meant that overt physical interactions have

moved from entering responses via keyboard to using a pointing device. And software

advances have allowed a range of visual and multimedia elements to be integrated into

information presentation and responses. With these new forms of physical interaction,

the impact on the resulting interactivity as a form of communication becomes critical.

Maintaining research on the impact of interactivity will continue to be paramount, as

technology continues to develop. Being able to separate the effects of technological

change from the impact on human-computer interaction would enable designers to focus

more on the learning than the computer program.

Understandings of interactivity have shifted from the external physical actions made

available to the learner (based primarily on learner control and adaptation) to the

structures into which those actions have been implemented to create more effective

4-106

learning environments (such as contextual and narrative forms). And apart from

Plowman (1996a) w h o describes the advantages of a narrative structure and Aldrich et

al (1998) who describe factors by which teachers should assess the benefits of C E L

applications, few formal experimental studies have focused on interactivity and

computer based learning. A s both these cases focused on applications designed for

children, an understanding of interactivity for adult learners is also warranted. Because

interactivity has continued to be identified as difficult to define, this study also aims to

develop a contemporary understanding of its implementation.

These instances suggest that a critical factor associated with interactivity is the meaning

ascribed to its many and varied manifestations by the user. If w e can understand the

range of meanings more concisely, then the production of C E L applications will be

better informed. To extract these meanings requires the input from people who use or

may use interactive products, which supports the use of qualitative models that allow

such meanings to be extracted.

This research study was designed to examine the ways in which adult learners interpret

and use the constructs of interactivity that have been identified in the literature. To

achieve this, the research focused on these three questions, as defined in Chapters 1-3:

• W h a t expectations do people have from interactive learning environments?

• In what ways are interactive elements considered to impact on the learning

process?

• How do elements of interactivity affect product useability and effectiveness?

The focus of the first question is on the ways people expect interactivity to supporting

computer-based learning and the second on the perceptions of discrete examples of

interactivity and their perceived impact on learning. The third question considers the

impact of interactivity on participants as they worked through a range of applications,

articulating their response to that experience. Each of the above questions are examined

in Chapters 5,6 and 7 respectively, including the underlying methodology, the data

subsequently obtained and an analysis of the results.

4-107

Research Process

This research study took place between mid-1995 and early 2000. However, m y

research focus on interactivity had its genesis in 1994 when I described a set of seven

levels of interactivity (Sims, 1994), based on m y experience as a courseware developer.

The time-line shown in Figure 4.1 illustrates the periods over which the activities

associated with the research were undertaken. During this time, I have regularly

reported on developments associated with theoretical aspects of the research (Sims

1997b, 1998, 1999) as well as experiencing interruptions to the process as a result of

employment commitments. The final stage of data analysis and preparing the thesis was

completed during the second half of 1999 during a Study Leave period granted by m y

employers.

ACTIVITY

Doctoral Work

Literature Research

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Writing

Outputs

ITFORUM Paper

Sims (1997a)

Sims (1998)

Sims (1999)

Contributing Factors

Change of Job

Course Development

1995

1995

1995

1996

1996

1996

1997

1997

1997

1998

1998

1998

1999

1999

1999

2000

2000

2000

Figure 4.1: Major Research Events

The process of data collection and analysis (illustrated in Figure 4.2 following) involved

three discrete procedures focusing on the expectations participants have on interactivity,

the relationship of examples of interactivity to learning and the experience of working

with interactive products.

With respect to the first procedure, a survey was created to collect both demographic

information from the participants as well as their expectations of interactivity. It was

designed, tested and revised during July and August of 1998. For the second procedure,

the derivation and finalisation of examples of interactivity, which participants were

asked to link to effects on learning, was undertaken in August and September of 1998.

4-108

For the third procedure, the set-up for the video taping of participants working with

interactive products was finalised during December 1998 and January 1999. The

detailed methodology and data analysis for each of these three procedures is

documented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 respectively.

ACTIVITY

Pilot Testing

Survey

Interactivity & Learning

Using Interactivity

Survey

Group A

Group B

Interactivity & Learning

Group A

Group B

Using Interactivity

Group A

Group B

1998

1998

1998

1998

1999

1999

1999

1999

Figure 4.2: Data Collection and Analysis

As described in the final section of this chapter, two groups of participants were used in

the data collection process. The process of completing the survey and allocating the

examples of interactivity was undertaken in one session; Group A completed this in

December 1998 and January 1999 and Group B in March and April of 1999. The video

recording of participants working with interactive multimedia products was completed

in February 1999 (Group A ) and April/May 1999 (Group B). Data recording and

analysis for the survey and allocation of examples was completed following each

participant's session. The videotapes were viewed and assessed in July 1999; the final

transcriptions were produced over the period June to November 1999. Complete details

of the respective processes can be found in the Chapters 5,6 and 7 following.

USING A QUALITATIVE FRAMEWORK

In this study, a predominantly qualitative approach has been employed because

interactivity and the structures used to provide interactivity have been subjected to little

prior study. As a construct that is complex and problematic to define, the qualitative

approach provides a means to examine the way people interpret and create meaning

from their experiences in order to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of

4-109

interactivity within computer-based learning environments. Conducting the research

with both rigour and method is as critical with qualitative as quantitative approaches.

In the field of educational technology, experimental methods have been applied

extensively (Ross & Morrison, 1996) and qualitative inquiry more sparsely (Savenye &

Robinson, 1996). Debate surrounding the value of quantitative and qualitative research

methodologies has been rigorous. Trochim (1999) argues that it is not a choice of

whether to follow the deductive statistical approach of quantitative research or the

inductive approach of qualitative research, but rather one of philosophy:

Many qualitative researchers operate under different epistemological assumptions from quantitative researchers. ... Many qualitative researchers also operate under different ontological assumptions about the world. ... There is no point in trying to establish "validity" in any external or objective sense. All that w e can hope to do is interpret our view of the world as researchers. (Trochim, 1999).

Given the uncertainty about interactivity, developing an appreciation of how people

respond to interactive environments in conjunction with their perceptions will provide

additional information of what interactivity is all about. This is especially important as

interactivity has different meanings for each user - assuming C E L resources will

continue to be developed, methods to maximise the effectiveness for larger numbers of

people will be critical. Whereas prescriptions have been fiercely argued for the delivery

of learning (Merrill et al, 1996), the complexity of the individual make it problematic to

devise similar prescriptions for interactive learning environments.

Phenomenological Research

One of the characteristics of computer-based interactive environments is that

individuals are expected to operate independently, therefore there is no guarantee of

consistent behaviours or operations. The ways in which individuals have come to

understand the concept and use of interactivity will provide a different perspective on its

meaning in the context of achieving learning outcomes. Within the qualitative paradigm

the phenomenological approach provides a method for investigating the lived

experience of people (Holloway, 1997). It is from these experiences of interactivity that

we may be able to derive forms of meaning about learning, computers and the

associated interactivity.

4-110

In supporting the use of qualitative methodologies to help discover levels of meaning

Burns (1997:11) observes:

The phenomenological field of educational action embraces the host of personal meanings that are derived from the context of direct experiencing. Perceptions and interpretations of reality are linked with these meaning structures. Thus the 'reality' of a given educational setting may be seen not as a fixed and stable entity but as a type of variable that might be discerned only through an analysis of these multiple forms of understanding.

Examining the behaviours of groups of people is also the practice of ethnographers, and

the techniques used with this methodology are relevant to investigate the phenomenon

of interactivity. Adopting an ethnographic position involves examining processes in a

preferably naturalistic setting and understanding the outcomes in terms of a wider,

holistic setting (Burns, 1997). The extent to which the interpretations of interactivity

determined from this study can be generalised to the field of computer-based learning

will be a measure of its success.

Integral to the qualitative form of research is the use of observation, which was

employed in the third procedure of this study, where participants worked through a

number of interactive titles. A full rationale for the form of observation and the

collection of spoken interpretations as well as video records are detailed in Chapter 7.

Meanings assigned to the term interactivity are disparate, ranging from those of physical

human-computer interaction to the emulation of human-human communication. The

investigative nature of this research is such that new understandings of the underlying

theories of learner-computer interaction may arise. The study is therefore consistent

with the precepts of grounded theory, where the aim is not to prove or reinforce an

existing theory but rather derive outcomes from the phenomenon (in this case

interactivity) being investigated (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

The research being reported in this study is exploratory in nature, given the ill-defined

nature and effect of interactivity in the C E L environment. As such it embodies a

qualitative methodology designed to collect data from participants in relation to their

experience with interactivity. T o maximise the value of this data, issues of reliability

and validity also need to be addressed.

4-111

Reliability

Reliability, within the quantitative research paradigm, involves being able to

demonstrate consistency and replicability such that repeated instances of the

methodology would elicit the same data. Within the qualitative paradigm however, this

is difficult to achieve because the relationship between researcher and participant is

unique and could never be completely replicated (Holloway, 1997). However,

Silverman (1993) believes that reliability can be achieved through ensuring that the

methods and data can be accessed, and that this can be achieved through the

maintenance of accurate records. For this study, all procedures have been documented

(see Chapters 5,6 and 7 following) and all data collected has been archived. More

importantly, the details provided are explicit enough to enable follow-up studies to be

conducted to compare outcomes and pursue new research areas.

Validity

According to Holloway (1997:159) validity "is the scientific concept of the everyday

notion of truth" and for this study, the importance of validity lies in both the internal

validity (representing the reality of the participants) and external validity

(generalisation) of the findings. Silverman (1993:155, citing Hammersley, 1990)

identifies three conditions for validity:

• the plausibility of the claim, given existing knowledge;

• the credibility of the claim, given the nature of phenomena, circumstances of the

research and

• the characteristics of the researcher.

To achieve this, Silveman (1993) suggests two methods, triangulation (comparing

different kinds of data and different methods) and respondent validation (taking findings

back to the participants). Lincoln & Guba (1985) expressed validity in terms of two

factors, trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability)

and authenticity (fairness, ontological, educative, catalytic and tactical). Using these

latter factors as a framework, the following details the way in which the current research

methodology can be validated.

4-112

Trustworthiness

Credibility of the data has been established through a form of triangulation, whereby the

constructs of interactivity were evaluated from three different perspectives.

Transferability has been focused on by employing seven different C E L titles to enable

comparison of responses between and within those titles. Dependability is demonstrated

by the detailed description of the research and decision making processes.

Confirmability can be established by reference to the original data and participant

transcripts and verified by viewing the original survey responses and videotapes.

Authenticity

Fairness can be demonstrated by participants giving their consent for data to be used in

the study. A n ontological approach is supported by participant reflection on their

experience, and is revealed through a wide range of comments that highlight their

change in appreciation of the interactive environment. The educative, catalytic and

tactical issues are addressed by the expectation that results from the research will play a

significant role in the educational process associated with both teaching the skills of

educational software development as well as the design and development process itself.

More importantly, one of the elements of qualitative research is that it encourages the

development of ideas as the research progresses (Holloway, 1997). In this study, the

process began by collecting data using three different procedures to investigate

interactivity that created a form of triangulation, considered integral to validating

qualitative endeavours. A s the data was collected, the themes that emerged from the

expectations of interactivity, assignment of interactive statements and experiences

working with interactive materials began to form a picture of interactivity that

supported its use from a learning perspective but that was at odds with its

implementation. A s I explored these themes it became evident that the structures around

which these interactions were built and the role of the program as active communicator

were critical to the effective implementation of interactivity. With this information, the

development of constructs by which designers and developers might consider the

computer-based interactive experience was developed, as detailed in Chapter 8.

4-113

DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

As with any research study, the findings are constrained and bounded by a range of

variables such as the characteristics of the participants, the instruments used for data

collection and the environment in which the study was undertaken. In this research on

the phenomenon of interactivity, the following issues are considered relevant to the

interpretation of the data and the instigation of follow-up research.

First, the participants were all students enrolled at a university that, at least from an

Australian perspective, was conditional upon achieving an appropriate level of

performance in their secondary studies. Consequently, the ability to interpret and

articulate the various aspects of interactivity investigated may have been different had

the participants had a different educational background. From another perspective, the

cultural background of participants was not considered in this study; however, the

participants were not an homogenous group of Anglo-Australians and the cultural

diversity of people using this form of communication may also be an important area to

investigate in future studies of interactivity.

Second, the multimedia products used in the third procedure (described in Chapter 7)

were selected for their representation of the range of interactive constructs and

presentation metaphors available with contemporary development techniques. However

they represent only a small fraction of the total products produced in the area of CEL.

Subsequent research of interactivity would benefit by assessing a different set of

products to determine whether similar responses are obtained.

Third, interactivity in computer-based applications will evolve and change as the

software and hardware develops. This study has investigated the effectiveness of

interactivity at the close of the twentieth century. A s new forms of human-computer

interaction emerge w e shall continue to require understanding of the techniques that can

be employed to maximise the effectiveness of that interaction.

Finally, the data collected from the three research procedures was assessed using a

qualitative framework in order to develop a better understanding of interactivity as a

phenomenon. Further studies in this field may benefit by examining the trends identified

from a quantitative perspective.

4-114

PARTICIPANTS

Sampling

To obtain an informed set of responses on the nature of interactivity, the knowledge and

understanding of participants becomes critical. In this case, working in a tertiary

program where students were studying the field of multimedia and interactive learning,

their interest and knowledge (evidenced by their choice to enrol in the program) made

them appropriate participants for the study. The use of participants in this way is known

as judgemental or purposive sampling, where the researcher chooses those "who can

provide the best information to achieve the objectives of the study" (Kumar, 1996:162).

Approval for the use of human participants in this study was received from the Southern

Cross University Ethics Committee and all participants consented to their responses

being used for research purposes (see Appendix A. 1).

The Environment

The participants were students enrolled in the first, second and third year of the

Bachelor of Multimedia program offered by Southern Cross University. Participation

was voluntary, and those who elected to provide responses were awarded a percentage

of course marks. A total of 70 people contributed to the data presented in this study

which was conducted with two groups of participants. The first, Group A, consisted of

students enrolled in a summer school unit and completing their first, second or third

year of study (n=22); the second, Group B, comprised students commencing their first

year of study (n=48).

Age and Gender

The participants from Group A were distributed as shown in Figure 4.3. A small

proportion of this group (18% and n=4) were in the 16-24 age group, and all were male.

The majority of Group A participants (78%) were in the 25-44 age group. Overall the

gender balance was biased towards the males (68%). In comparison, the participants

from Group B were younger (as illustrated in Figure 4.4) and with a relatively equal

gender balance (52% males and 4 8 % females).

4-115

Group A

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54

Age Range

55+

• Male • Female

Figure 4.3: Age and Gender (Group A)

Group B

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54

Age Range

55+

IMale •Female

Figure 4.4: Age and Gender (Group B)

In total, the two groups consisted of 5 7 % males (n=40) and 4 3 % females (n=30) with

7 2 % aged under 35 (n=50). Given this distribution, the majority of participants

represent a generation who have grown up with computer technology and whose

observations on the value of interactivity are likely to be pertinent to its future success.

4-116

As a variable, gender has received attention in terms of its effect on performance with

computer technology (for example Spender, 1995; Teh & Fraser, 1995; Dugdale,

DeKoven & Ju, 1998). For this study, the gender of the participants will be used as a

variable to compare responses and approaches across the three different procedures used

to address the interactivity phenomenon.

Experience

The more time people spend working with particular forms of technology will move

them from a novice to experienced status. The relative experience of the participants

would provide a means to assess whether concepts of interactivity vary with experience,

in the same way that attitudinal studies have demonstrated more favourable responses to

C E L from people with prior experience (eg. Last, O'Donnell & Kelly, 1998).

To assess the experience level for these participants involved in this study, data was

collected in terms of both their overall background using instructional technology as

well as their specific experience in learning with, designing and developing C E L

applications. Figure 4.5 represents the range of experience expressed by both groups in

studying and/or working with instructional technology (Question 1.1 in the survey).

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

A

Experience

I I 1

r___i __•> ___>/ 1-5 5-10

Years

10-15 15+

Q Group A • Group B

Figure 4.5: Experience Studying/Working with Instructional Technology

4-117

As Group A consisted of students who had completed at least one year of study, the

8 0 % indicating between 1 and 5 years experience is not unexpected. Similarly, the 4 5 %

of Group B students indicating no prior experience reflects the number of school leavers

entering the program. Only 1 4 % of the members of Group A (n=4) and 1 1 % from

Group B (n=5) indicated more than 5 years experience, which had been gained through

work in the teaching or training environments. W h e n considered in terms of the follow-

up question that asked participants to indicate their current role in applying technology

to teaching and learning, very few respondents indicated any additional experience

other than that of student. As detailed in Table 4.1, the 4 participants from Group A had

additional experience in web-related activities and the 5 participants from Group B

indicated experience across a range of activities.

Role

Instructional Designer

Interactive Designer

Graphics Designer

W e b Page Developer

Interactive Developer

Audio/Video Specialist

Network Support

On-Line Learning

Web-Page Designer

Teacher

Research

Content Expert

Group A

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

Group B

1

4

4

5

1

4

0

0

5

0

2

0

Table 4.1: Roles in Computer-Enhanced Learning

However, when compared in conjunction with the three questions asking for prior

experience in learning with, designing or developing educational technology (Questions

2.1,2.2 and 2.3 in the survey), a different picture emerged. With respect to Learning

with Technology (Figure 4.6), all of the participants from Group A who responded

(n=21) indicated that their experience originated from their university studies. In

comparison, of the 38 Group B participants who indicated having used educational

technology as a learner, 6 6 % (n=25) had gained that experience from either School or

University. In this case the applications used ranged from Encarta and Typing Tutorials

to the study of c o m m o n multimedia development tools such as Authorware, Director

and Photoshop. These responses demonstrate that the majority of participants had prior

experience in using various forms of educational technology.

4-118

Learning with Technology

100%^

80%-

60% -

40%

20%

.

-laP n n i ____

<—A

1 P None 1-4 5-9 10+

Ni

•

imber of Occasions

Group A • Group B

Figure 4.6: Occasions Learning with Technology

The second question in this series focused on the experience of participants in designing

educational technology applications. As shown in Figure 4.7, over 9 0 % (n=43) of

Group B indicated no experience in this area of the field. In comparison, the participants

from Group A indicated a higher degree of experience, which again was gained

primarily through their university studies.

I

__\ 100%-f

80%

60%

40%

20%

UTO

;

Designing Educational Technology

•

V=9 1 Y=9 •L None 1-4 5-9 10+

h

Ii

umber of Occasions

] Group A • Group B

Figure 4.7: Occasions Designing Educational Technology

This trend is repeated for the responses associated with participants' experience in

developing educational technology applications (Figure 4.8). In this case, 9 0 % (n=43)

of Group B participants indicated no prior experience whereas Group A participants had

gained their experience through their university studies.

Developing Educational Technology

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

/

I *=a_

•/ A

¥=V f=im* \—/ None 1-4 5-9

Number of Occasions

10+

D Group A • Group B

Figure 4.8: Occasions Developing Educational Technology

In summary, while members of Group A had more experience with the process of

design and development of interactive educational applications, the participants from

Group B indicated very little background in this area, as might be expected from a

group of first-year students. For discussion and comparison purposes therefore, the

participants from Group A (those with at least one year of formal study in interactive

technologies) will be considered as experienced and those from Group B (those with no

formal study of interactive technologies) as inexperienced or novice.

CONCLUSION

Interactivity has been shown to be a diffuse concept and one which has received little

attention as a research focus. The use of a qualitative approach with a purposive group

of participants provides a context in which the research questions can be considered

while maintaining the necessary research rigour. The characteristics of the participants

are such that the data obtained from the research can be assessed in terms of the

participants as a group, as well as with respect to their gender and prior experience.

4-120

The following chapters examine the methodology and results for each of the three

procedures considered in relation to interactivity and learning.

Chapter 5 uses data collected from the survey to examine the expectations of

interactivity - that is, the understanding participants have of the value interactivity adds

to the computer-based learning process.

Chapter 6 focuses on the range of interactive constructs themselves, and the extent to

which they are considered to provide the learner with control over, as well as support of,

the learning process.

Chapter 7 provides an extensive examination of the ways in which participants work

with computer-based applications, their reaction to the interactivity provided and the

means by which that interactivity supports their involvement in the overall learning

process.

Chapter 8 builds on the findings from the three sets of data collection activities and

examines these in the context of the performance and theatre metaphor, considering the

implications and benefits for the design and development of computer-based learning

and the achievement of effective, engaging and meaningful interactions.

CHAPTER 5:

EXPECTATIONS OF INTERACTIVITY

INTRODUCTION

Interactivity has been shown to be integral to the research and development of

educational software, but at the same time somewhat of an enigma in terms of the

success of these applications. Given that computer-enhanced learning (CEL) resources

have yet to realise their potential, it may be that the interactivity being employed is not

meeting the needs of the user. To investigate this, the way in which people perceive

interactivity to operate, and its effectiveness with learning, was the focus of the first

research question:

What expectations do people have from interactive learning

environments?

The procedure associated with addressing this question is reported in this chapter. The

research data was collected from the written responses made by participants from both

groups to three questions presented in a survey (see Appendix B. 1 for the cover letter

and Appendix B.2 for the survey form). The survey was designed for completion and

submission electronically; however, limitations with the server technology meant that

the responses had to be undertaken manually.

The responses were coded and analysed using the NUD*IST qualitative research

software, which enabled the specification of a series of themes by which the responses

to each question could be classified. These themes are considered in terms of the

participants' experience (comparing Groups A and B ) and their gender, as well as a

combined group. The themes identified, which are consistent with the range of

conditions and constructs of interactivity identified in Chapters 2 and 3, suggest that the

participants had a clear expectation of interactivity in terms of its characteristics and

impact on the learning process. In addition, there was evidence to suggest that the trends

in responses were consistent with the contemporary approaches of cognitive aspects of

interactivity.

5-122

METHODOLOGY

The Survey Questions

The field of educational multimedia (the term given to computer-based learning in the

university program being studied by the participants) is clearly diverse and complex,

and as has been demonstrated, the concept of interactivity appears equally open to

different levels of interpretation and understanding. One means to gather information

about the ways people understand a concept is through the questionnaire or survey,

which was used in this component of the research to elicit written responses about

interactivity. A written response was considered appropriate as it enabled the participant

to record their understandings in a considered and non-pressured environment as well as

in confidence. In this study, the written responses to the questions were provided during

the same session at which the demographic information was collected and the allocation

of interactive statements completed (as documented in Chapter 6). A time limit was not

imposed upon participants and the responses ranged from a few words to a paragraph.

The questions posed focused on three specific aspects of the relationship between

interactivity and learning - functionality, characteristics and effects. The open-ended

syntax of each question was designed to elicit a wide range of responses and was

implemented in the following manner:

• What makes an educational multimedia product interactive?

This question was designed to give participants the opportunity to reflect on their

understanding of the word interactive in the context of CEL. It was intended that

the range and distribution of responses would enable comparisons with the formal

interpretations of interactivity identified and discussed in Chapters 1,2 and 3.

• What do you see as the major characteristics of interactivity?

This question was designed to focus on the indicators of interactivity and the

operational characteristics of its implementation - what makes something

interactive? While the literature has considered interactivity from a theoretical

perspective, w e have little data from the users of the technology.

5-123

• What do you see as the major benefits of interactivity to the learning process?

This question was designed to provide input into the way interactivity is perceived

to advantage learning in computer-based environments. Interactivity has been

considered to be the significant element in providing an enhanced learning

environment with computer-based learning resources. But what do the users think?

Overall, the analysis of responses enabled comparisons between the theoretical and

practical, a reflection on the experiences of users and the way the term interactivity has

been understood within a more public space. Participants (n=70) were asked to answer

each of the questions when completing the survey form. One participant from Group A

and one from Group B did not complete the answers, resulting in responses being

collected from 68 participants, 21 from Group A and 47 from Group B.

Process

This section describes the process by which responses to each of the three questions

were analysed and the classification system derived by which the distribution of

responses could be reported effectively.

Manual analysis of survey responses can be complex and time-consuming. To support

this process I used the N U D * I S T (Non-numerical Unstructured Data * Index, Searching

and Theorising) software application, designed specifically to support the recording and

analysis of qualitative data (Gahan & Hannibal, 1998). N U D * I S T was designed to link

documentary materials to themes (referred to as nodes, which are structured

hierarchically or independently) and I used this facility to provide a structure in which

to record and present the responses to each of the three questions. Being able to use the

indexing and search techniques provided a means to assess the responses and the

differences exhibited between questions. To achieve this, N U D * I S T requires the

researcher to define units within their research data, which may be words, lines,

sentences, paragraphs, pages or whole documents depending on the analysis required.

To use the processing and analysis features of NUD*IST, each response was first word-

processed and then stored in a text format. The following example of a single response

illustrates the sequence necessary to achieve this (Figure 5.1).

5-124

STEP1

[SIMONE]: Basically (or most importantly) the engagement of the user, more specifically the user participating or engaging in a conversation with the computer. A type of spiral effect of the computer reacting to the user's input and then the user reacting to computer's output... and so it goes!

STEP 2

[Simone]: Basically (or most importantly) the engagement of the user, more specifically the user participating or engaging in a conversation with the computer. A type of spiral effect of the computer reacting to user's input and then the user reacting to computer's output ... and so it goes!

STEP 3

*Simone_

Basically (or most importantly) the engagement of the user,_

more specifically the user participating or engaging in a conversation with the computer. A type of spiral effect of the computer reacting to user's input and then the user reacting to computer's output ... and so it goes!„

Figure 5.1: Preparing Response for analysis with NUD*IST

First, the response was entered, including the first name of the participant for

identification purposes. Second, the response was converted to a text-only format and

third, re-formatted to conform to the requirements of NUD*IST. As shown in Step 3,

each text unit to be used for the analysis is separated with a hard carriage-return (f).

The first text unit *simone_ represents a sub-header that provides a context for

retrievals and divides the text into sections - in this case each sub-header (identified by

the *) is the name of the respondent. The second text unit

Basically (or most importantly) the engagement of the user!

was assigned to a node titled Engagement and the third to a node titled Communication.

This process was repeated with each response to each question, using one text file for

each question for each group, a total of 6 text files. Using the report functions within

NUD*IST, a total of 384 individual text units were coded to nodes, 153 from Group A

and 231 from Group B.

For this exercise, because respondents often included more than one exemplar of

interactivity in a single response, I decided on a text unit that would represent an

5-125

individual exemplar of interactivity. Once a unit has been created it can be assigned to a

label (or node) and by assigning the various text units to a hierarchy of nodes results in

responses of like kind being grouped and accessible for analysis.

The overall process of allocating text units to nodes was conducted over a number of

sessions. The first series of these involved working through each text unit and assigning

it to a node, and in the process creating a hierarchy of themes based on the constructs of

interactivity identified in Chapter 3. The structure created after each of the six files was

processed on the first occasion is shown in Figure 5.2.

NODE HIERARCHY

(1) GENDER

-(1 1)Male

- (1 2) Female

(2) ENGAGEMENT

(2 1) Participation

• (2 2) Attention - (2 3) Manipulation

- (2 4) Motivation

- (2 5) Interest

- (2 6) Fun - (2 7) Involvement

(2 8) Exploration

(2 9) Experimentation

- (2 10) Intervention

-(2 11) Challenge

-(2 12) Imagination

-(3) COMMUNICATION

-(3 1) Conversation

-(31 1)Two-Way

- (3 1 2) Potential

(3 2) Understand Purpose

- (3 3) Feedback

(3 3 1) Immediacy

(3 3 2) Loops

(3 3 3) Alternatives

- (3 4) Product Information

(3 5) Input-Response

- (3 6) Variation

- (4) C O N T R O L

(41) Navigation

- (4 2) Self-Pacing

(4 3) Choices

(4 4) Levels

(4 5) Outcomes

- (4 6) Content Display

- (4 7) In Control

(4 8) Searching

(4 9) Exit

(4 10) Branching

- (5) DESIGN

(51) Interface

(-(51 1) Exciting

• (5 2) Text Density

- (5 3) Multimedia

- (5 4) Constant Exit

- (5 5) Clickable Objects

- (5 6) Alternatives

-(5 61) Paths

-(5 6 2) Content

(5 7) Easy-to-Use

(5 8) Flexibility

(5 9) Non-linear

-(5 10) Pedagogy

-(5 11) Balanced

(512) Audience

(5 13) Expense

(5 14) Simulation

-(5 15) Currency

-(6) INDIVIDUAL

(6 1) Experience

(6 2) Knowledge Building

(6 3) Ownership

(6 4) Relevance

(6 5) Supportive

(6 6) Communication

(6 7) Lateral Thinking

(6 8) Self Development

- (6 9) Enjoyable (6 10) Non-Threatening

(7) ADAPTATION

(7 1) Outcomes

(7 2) Sequencing

\- (7 3) Learning Styles

(8) MANIPULATION

(8 1) Construction

(8 2) Activity

-(9) LEARNING

-(91) Easier

(9 2) Information Coding

(9 3) Meaningful

(9 4) Knowledge Transfer

(9 5) Retention

(9 6) Understanding

(9 7) Self-Directed

(9 8) Assessmement

(& §) Faster

(9 10) Distance

(9 11) Collaboration

(9 12) Developmental

(9 13) Anywhere

Figure 5.2: Node Hierarchy - Initial Structure

5-126

The numbers assigned to each of the nodes are used by N U D * I S T for allocation of

codes. For example, coding a text unit to the Fun node is achieved by linking the

respective text unit to node (2 6). The assignment of text-units to nodes was based on

either the terminology used by participants in the response or by interpretation of the

complete text response.

On completion of this first coding process, the nodes and text units assigned were

examined and, where appropriate, moved or combined, using the following procedure:

a) reviewing nodes coded with few text units

b) reviewing nodes with similar concepts

c) merging nodes

d) re-coding and removing coding

e) allocating codes from a higher (parent) level to a lower (child) level

This iterative process meant that text-units assigned to a particular node in the first

instance were moved to or merged with other nodes. Using N U D * I S T enabled the

reworking of both the node hierarchy and coding of units to be undertaken efficiently.

For example, node (2 9) Experimentation was merged with node (2 8) Exploration and

node (2 II) Challenge was merged with node (2 4) Motivation as they were both

consistent with the levels proposed by Aldrich et al (1998). Similarly, node (8 1)

Construction was moved to node (2) and merged with node (2 3) Manipulation and

node (8 2) Activity moved to node (2) and merged with node (2 7) Involvement

resulting in node (8) Manipulation having no text units assigned and being removed

from the hierarchy. Other merges and movements were implemented on a similar basis.

The final tree-structure of nodes is shown in Figure 5.3 following, with the original

numbers for nodes maintained for consistency. These six themes represent the major

categories of response that emerged and the sub-themes associated with each major

node represent the range and form of responses within that node. The association

between the text-nodes derived from responses and their allocation to sub-themes are

more fully described in the analysis of responses for each of the three questions reported

on pages 5-129 to 5-158 following.

It should be noted that while NUD*IST enables node hierarchies of much greater depth

and complexity, the structure presented was considered appropriate to enable concise

reporting on the themes and groupings of the responses with respect to perceptions and

expectations of the various aspects of interactivity.

-0)

NODE HIERARCHY

GENDER -(1 1)Male

- (1 2) Female

-(2 ENGAGEMENT -(21) Participation

- (2 2) Attention

- (2 3) Manipulation

- (2 4) Motivation

- (2 5) Interest

-(4] CONTROL -(4 1) Navigation

- (4 2) Self-Pacing

- (4 3) Choices

- (4 6) Content Display

- (4 7) In Control

-(4 10) Branching

-(4 11) Learner

•(5]

- (2 8) Exploration

-(2 12) Imagination

(3! COMMUNICATION -(3 1) Conversation

- (3 2) Understand Purpose

- (3 3) Feedback

- (3 5) Input-Response

- (3 7) Two-Way

DESIGN

-(6) INDIVIDUAL

- (6 2) Knowledge Building

- (6 4) Relevance

- (6 5) Supportive

- (6 6) Adaptation

- (6 7) Thinking

- (6 9) Sequencing

-(611) Learning Styles

• 0

-(51) Interface

- (5 3) Multimedia

- (5 6) Alternatives

- (5 8) Flexibility

- (5 9) Non-linear

-(5 10) Pedagogy

-(511) Balanced

LEARNING

-(91) Easier

- (9 2) Information Coding

- (9 3) Meaningful

- (9 7) Self-Directed

- (9 8) Assessment

-(9 10) Distance

i-(912) Developmental -(5 12) Audience

-(5 13) Expense

Figure 5.3: Node Hierarchy - Final Structure

Expectations of Interactivity?

What do people expect from interactivity? H o w do people perceive interactivity? What

is their understanding of its advantages in the human-computer environments? To what

extent are these perceptions consistent with the theoretical position of interactive

environments? In the following sections of this chapter, the themes emerging from the

responses are presented and discussed in terms of each of the three questions and their

potential impact on the development of C E L applications. As detailed in Figure 5.3, the

six major themes used to provided a context for the range of responses are Engagement,

Communication, Control, Design, Individual and Learning.

To represent the distribution of responses across themes and sub-themes and provided a

context for their discussion and analysis, a graphical format similar to that illustrated in

Figure 5.4 will be used.

5-128

Themes by Question

50% -,

40%

30%

20%

10% 7^=7\

Engagement Communication Control Design Individual Learning

Theme

• Q1 _|Q2 Q Q 3

Figure 5.4: Distribution of Responses for Each Question by Theme

In this example, the responses to the first question (Ql) were predominantly allocated to

the Communication (28%) and Control (32%) themes. For the second question (Q2), the

major theme identified was Communication (32%) followed by Engagement (21%),

Design (21%) and Control (19%). For the third question (Q3), the responses were

primarily allocated to the Engagement (31%), Control (20%) and Learning (20%)

themes. This form of distribution enables comparisons between the expectations of

participants and existing understandings of interactivity within C E L environments.

The following analysis examines the responses to each question in relation to their

allocation to the six themes and their associated sub-themes. The analysis includes

consideration of the variation in responses to each question based on gender and

experience, with Group A being considered as being experienced and Group B as less

experienced, as detailed in Chapter 4.

In reporting this data, selected responses made by participants are included to

demonstrate their allocation to the node or sub-theme being discussed. Where this

occurs, only the text allocated to the particular sub-theme (node) is presented.

5-129

QUESTION 1: WHAT MAKES AN EDUCATIONAL MULTIMEDIA PRODUCT INTERACTIVE?

Overview

The identification of factors that contribute to a product's interactivity will demonstrate

the extent to which the various conditions of interactivity, as discussed in Chapters 2

and 3, are associated with C E L applications. The distribution of responses by gender

and experience are represented in Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 respectively. While there

was little gender variation in the responses to this question, the emphasis on both

Control (the user expecting to be able to perform activities) and Communication (the

user expecting that the application will respond in some manner) highlights the

importance of these elements or conditions within interactive C E L products.

Figure 5.5: Percentage Responses by Gender and Theme to Question 1

When considered from the experience perspective (Figure 5.6), those with more

experience with interactive design and development (Group A ) emphasise

Communication over Control, Design and the Individual whereas those with less

experience (Group B ) emphasise Control over Communication. These variations

suggest that those with more understanding or prior experience of the field of

interactivity perceive the important aspects of interactivity as being those where there is

more involvement or communication as well as a focus on the individual learner.

5-130

Engagement Communication Control Design Individual Learning

• Group A • Group B

Figure 5.6:Percentage Responses by Experience and Theme to Question 1

The following discussion focuses on each of the five themes to which responses were

allocated for the first question. For each of these themes (see Figure 5.6), the range of

sub-themes is identified and selected responses representing those themes included for

discussion. Where necessary, minor editorial modifications have been made to the

responses to maintain grammatical continuity. A s no responses to this question were

allocated to the Learning theme, it is not included in the presentation and discussion.

Engagement

According to Aldrich et al (1998), the ability to manipulate aspects of the learning

environment and take an active and involved role in the learning process are critical

aspects of interactivity, and are consistent with both the mutual (Schwier & Misanchuk,

1993) and non-immersive (Sims, 1997a) levels of ineractivity. With this level of

involvement the user becomes engaged with the content material, focusing their

attention on the learning and working towards deep learning (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).

The information presented in Figure 5.7 illustrates the percentage of responses (15% or

17 responses) that were coded to the Engagement node for Question 1. In this case,

factors such as Participation, Attention, Manipulation and Motivation were the major

sub-themes identified. The following discussion reports on responses allocated to each

of these sub-themes identified under the broader theme of Engagement.

5-131

Participation Attention Manipulation Motivation Interest Exploration Imagination

Figure 5.7: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Engagement for Question 1

Participation

The majority of responses allocated to this theme (7%) focused on terms such as

participation, activity and involvement. This acknowledes that for C E L titles to be

interactive, the learner is expected to be taking on an active role.

[Ruth]: W h e n the person using it can interact with the product. The person can actively

participate in the learning.

[Paul]: It would be a good idea to have a video or movie that talk to the users thus give the

user a feeling of participation.

[Sam]: Being able to actively participate in the learning experience.

[Natasha]: Being able to participate, getting involved in the learning process.

Attention

A second attribute of interactivity linked to engagement was that of attention. The way

this particular response is phrased places emphasis on the program providing the user

with engaging activities, and consequently on the design team to create the appropriate

interactions necessary to achieve this.

[Anna]: It engages user's attention by forcing a cognitive, proactive response, as distinct from low level, reactive actions. Interactivity can range from point & click to immersive virtuality, however used with discretion, higher interactivity levels are relative to greater

educational merit.

5-132

Manipulation

This response was distinguished from control, as the word manipulate places emphasis

on the user being able structure the content according to their own particular

requirements, as emphasised by Aldrich et al (1998).

[Michael]: An interactive educational multimedia product is achieved when the user is able to directly manipulate the content within the software application.

Interest and Exploration

Another aspect of interactivity as engagement is that learners might expect the program

to be organised in such a way that they can explore and seek information, and

consequently become more interested in the activity. The extent to which the program is

involved in this process would appear to be integral to its success.

[Joel]: Involves the individual seeking information on their own accord, causing them to take interest

[Brea]: The user is able to explore the product and learn simultaneously.

Communication

One of the primary themes to emerge from the responses was that of Communication,

where there was a very clear expectation that there should be a two-way flow of

information between computer and user. This emphasises the emulation of human-

human interaction in the learner-computer activities.

Conversation Purpose Feedback Input Loop Two-way

Figure 5.8: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Communication for Question 1

5-133

Feedback is also identified as one of the critical aspects of the communication process,

as it provides the user with information on the application's interpretation of their

action. From Hannafin's (1987) perspective, this can range from a simple confirmation

to a complex elaborative process. The allocations of responses to the Communication

theme for Question 1 are shown in Figure 5.8. A n issue to consider therefore in the

design of applications is the extent to which a form of conversation takes place - and the

ways in which the computer software is able to play an active role in that process.

Conversation

[Andi]: The possibility of immediate response and therefore the potential for communication.

Purpose

[Suzanne]: Understanding what is required.

Feedback

[David], Getting good feedback. Seeing something happen when you do something.

Input Loop

[Danny]: Requirement for the user to apply an input (mouse click, drop & rag) with the program responding to the input.

[Darren]: The ability of the product to allow the user to respond to questions/activities and for the product to react to that.

Two-Way

[Elizabeth]: Two-way communication between the user and the computer program.

From these responses it is apparent that the user expects the application to engage them

in some form of dialogue, of which user input and computer feedback are integral

components. A question to emerge from this is what constitutes communication during

a user's encounter with an application - is it the mere presence of the information or is it

achieved by more explicit forms of user and computer activity? The importance of

feedback to the learning process cannot be underestimated (Dempsey & Sales, 1993)

and the way in which it is employed to maintain ongoing communication appears

critical to the success of C E L applications.

Control

During the analysis of responses to Question 1, a recurring theme of navigation, self-

pacing, control and choices was identified. As these relate to actions a user can

undertake, they were allocated under the general theme of Control, as shown in Figure

5.9. The following responses illustrate the ways in which participants identified the

various attributes of control.

_7 /—-y /—y Navigation Self-Racing Choices Content In Control Branching Learner

Figure 5.9: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Control for Question 1

Navigation

[Kathy]: Interactivity enables the user to navigate and map the direction they wish to follow.

[Cheryl]: The user can move or work through the environment created by the product.

[Matt]: The product needs to allow the user to navigate his/her way around, at least to a certain extent, for example through options.

Self-Pacing

[David]: Being able to learn at one's own pace.

[Nicholas]: The ability of the product to allow the user to choose what educational path to take and consequently determine the speed at which they learn.

[Kahli]: You can progress through a program at your own pace

Choices

[Scott]: The ability of the user to choose paths and methods to take.

[Tatiana]: W h e n information is presented in such a way that the user is able to choose subjects at their leisure and go through the information in whatever order they wish.

5-135

Learner

[Andrew]: This is determined by h o w much control the user has over the application. L o w interactivity: forward and back button; high interactivity: user involvement. For example, set the parameters of the product to see an outcome.

[Philip]: The multimedia product becomes interactive when the user has some say in what takes place in the program.

The importance of Control in interactive applications is demonstrated by the number of

responses allocated to this theme ( 3 2 % and n=39). A s will be discussed throughout this

study, the extent to which the learner is in control compared to being provided with

control options is another aspect of interactivity that appears to be critical to the overall

effectiveness of CEL.

Design

While the analysis in Chapters 1, 2 and 3 suggests that design elements are critical to

interactivity and the learning process, only a small percentage of responses were

allocated to this theme (16% and n-19). This may reflect the overall low experience

level of participants with respect to working in product development activities. The

allocation of responses to the Design theme is illustrated in Figure 5.10, and the

responses selected demonstrate h o w participants made the associations between design

and interactivity.

A

/

1TLT €3 0 __Z7 / '"S t_3 _3 --Z-^ ./'' Interface Multmedia Options Flexibility Non-Linear Pedagogy Balance Audience Expense

Figure 5.10: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Design for Question 1

5-136

Interface

[Adam]: Limiting the amount of information to be presented to the viewer. W h e n interested in a specific topic, the viewer can zoom in and get more in depth information on it.

Multimedia

[Katie]: The product should have pictures/video/music/text facts that the user can easily view and possibly a game. Rather than just a page of information - that doesn't allow the audience to interact.

Options

[Luke]: Having an exponential amount of information on demand beyond the interface.

Flexibility

[Kelle]: W h e n it's easy to use, readable and answers the questions you need answering.

[Tiago]: Being able to interact with the product in different ways

Balance

[Travis]: A balanced approach which lets the user work amongst the products and systems. For example 50/50 theory and practice.

Audience

[Kelle]: It must be directed at the correct audience in order to be successfully interactive.

Individual

Two of the recurring themes in the discourse of educational software are those of

individualisation and adaptation. This however becomes a very confused area when

commentaries on the field are considered. For example, Misanchuk & Schwier

(1992:356) contend that "in the most basic structure - a linear one - all learners

necessarily go through the same experiences". But while an external observer might

witness learners going through the same set of materials, we cannot conclude that they

have undergone the same experiences individually. Similarly, more complex structures

where learners have more choices is in one sense more individualised. However, if the

user does not feel in control, those choices may be misguided or misdirected in terms of

the underlying instructional framework and strategy.

An adaptive system suggests that the application will maintain a record of an

individual's responses and conditionally adjust aspects of the presentation based on an

5-137

analysis of those responses. However, this needs to be accomplished with the full

awareness of the individual involved to ensure communication is maintained. As shown

by the following allocation of responses to the Individual theme (Figure 5.11),

participants expect this form of interaction in a number of different ways.

Figure 5.11: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Individual for Question 1

Relevance

[Graham]: The ability or opportunity for users to engage with the content in such a manner

that allows for a unique experience.

[Georgia]: A product is interactive if the user can understand its purpose, can navigate

through the program easily and can relate to the product.

Adaptation

[Allan]: The product can also be designed to respond to the user's participation. For example, if the user takes more than say 5 attempts to proceed to the next stage, the following clues m a y be presented in such a way that the user may find them a bit easier.

[Scott]: Variable paths and responses based on user-selections. Various ways to achieve

outcomes.

[Bryn]: The ability of a user to effect a program's direction or outcome as well as the

program directing the user.

Although only 16 responses (7%) were coded to the sub-themes associated with the

individual, it provides some evidence that the specific characteristics of the learner will

impact on the overall effectiveness of the interactive experience.

5-138

Summary

From the responses provided by participants to the first question, the Control and

Communication themes were identified as major contributors to interactivity in

educational multimedia applications, with Design and Engagement to a lesser extent.

While control has been identified as a significant component of successful learner-

computer interaction and subject to considerable research attention, the communication

factors are less explicit in the literature. The extent to which this form of

communication or conversation is embedded in the program reactions to learner actions

is one that continues to require investigation. More importantly, it m a y be critical if the

narrative, performance and theatre metaphors introduced in Chapter 3 are found to be

important attributes of effective and successful interactivity.

5-139

QUESTION 2: WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERACTIVITY?

Overview

The second question asked participants to consider the specific attributes of interactivity

to provide a means to identify discrepancies between practical expectations and

theoretical prescriptions. The distribution of responses by gender and experience are

illustrated in Figure 5.12 and Figure 5.13 respectively.

Figure 5.12: Percentage Responses by Gender and Theme to Question 2

As with the responses to Question 1, those provided for this question were similar for

both male and female participants, with Communication, Design, Engagement and

Control the dominant themes emerging. With respect to interactivity specifically, the

important observation is that it is the ability of the application to operate in some form

of two-way, conversational mode that participants recognised as characteristic of the

interactive environment. In addition, no responses to this question were coded to the

Learning theme.

However, small variations are apparent where the male respondents gave priority to

Communication and Design while the female respondents favoured Communication and

Engagement. Further investigation of gender differences and interactivity may provide

5-140

insights into the ways in which C E L applications can be developed to cater for such

differentiation within the target population.

When the responses to Question 2 are considered in relation to experience (Figure 5.13),

those with more background in the field (Group A ) focused on a range of factors,

emphasising Engagement, Control and Communication. In comparison, the less

experienced participants from Group B identified Communication as the major theme

by which interactivity could be characterised. This would suggest that novice or

inexperienced users of computer-based products may require more input from the

program, in the form of conversation and feedback, than those with a higher degree of

confidence.

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Engagement Communication Control Design Individual Learning

• Group A • Group B

Figure 5.13: Percentage Responses by Experience and Theme to Question 2

The following presentation details each of these themes in terms of the sub-themes to

which responses were allocated, including representative responses from the

participants.

Engagement

Factors associated with engagement were identified by 2 1 % (n=28) of all participants in

response to Question 2, which reaffirms the importance of the learner being actively

involved with the material being presented. Samples of the responses are provided to

5-141

demonstrate the w a y in which participants identified Engagement as a characteristic of

interactivity, with the distribution of responses illustrated in Figure 5.14

Figure 5.14: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Engagement for Question 2

Participation

[Jessmyn]: Being able to participate in activities that the product offers. For example, listen to music, play a game, view graphics and maybe even ask questions for the product to answer.

Attention

[Anna]: Engagement between the program and the learner.

Manipulation

[Graham]: Users can change outcomes based on their decisions.

[Matt]: To be able to 'manipulate' your way through an application.

Motivation

[Kelle]: Being challenged by the educational multimedia product.

[Cheryl]: Providing thought provoking stimulus in a variety of ways which will make the user want to continue.

Interest

[Mike]: Most importantly, elements to keep the user interested in the subject.

5-142

The response by Jessmyn emphasises the importance for learner-initiated activity and

that from Mike the responsibility of the program to maintain the learner's interest. Both

reinforce the requirement for designers to ensure that the learner has access to relevant

options and the importance of the program being proactive in communication and

facilitating the learner's engagement with the content.

Communication

The distribution of responses for this theme followed a similar trend to those provided

for Question 1 where, as illustrated in Figure 5.15, participants identified the Feedback

and Two-Way sub-themes as characteristic of the interactive process. The following

examples highlight the way in which these responses were expressed.

15%

12%

Conversation Purpose Feedback Input Loop Two-Way

Figure 5.15: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Communication for Question 2

Conversation

[Allan]: As with human interactivity, the user should be able to converse with the computer

via the product.

Purpose

[Suzanne]: Understanding of what is expected by having a clear interface and good instructions or directions if necessary.

[Kevin]: The ability to communicate and function within different mediums that complement and enhance each own sense of purpose and usefulness.

5-143

Feedback

[Aspasia]: T o give feedback.

Input-Loop

[Danny]: A relationship between user and program with the process being initiated by the user input. The program responds to the input by providing feedback, branching etc with the cycle repeating upon the user responding with further input.

[Sam]: Being told a piece of information then being able to communicate to the computer and receive a specific response.

[Emma]: Information is relayed between the user and the computer; there is input and output from both.

[Philip]: The user has input into the program and the program has an appropriate reaction. Input from the user that creates output is the major characteristic.

Two-Way

[Nick]: Interactivity means it must work both ways. Instead of the information simply being presented on the screen the user should be able to fiddle around, look at certain things in depth.

As illustrated in Figure 5.15, the theme of Communication is characterised by elements

of feedback, input-loops or two-way processes. Some of these responses reference

particularly important terms such as relationship (Danny) and input (Phillip), as they

reinforce the position or role the learner takes in the process and their ability to interact

in an individual manner. At the same time, the program must respond appropriately; this

issue will be considered in more detail in an assessment of the way participants worked

with interactive titles (Chapter 7).

Control

For Question 2,19% of responses (n=26) were coded to the Control node and as

detailed in Figure 5.16 the majority of responses focused on the sub-themes of choices,

then navigation and content.

5-144

Navigation Self-Pacing Choices Content In Control Branching Learner

Figure 5.16: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Control for Question 2

Navigation

[Nicholas]: The user being able to move back and forth throughout the product at their will.

Self-Pacing

[Brad]: Freedom to choose path or rate of the activity.

Choices

[Paul]: While allowing the user to make up their own mind on which way to do things in

the package.

[Scott]: A non-linear lesson or progression - ability to move freely through the program at will and do what you want when you want. Even how you want.

[Adam]: The ability to select the information the viewer wishes to see at any given time.

Content

[Adam]: Limiting the amount of information to be presented to the viewer and when the viewer is interested in a specific topic can zoom in and get more in depth information on it.

Learner

[Andrew]: User control.

Overall, the responses emphasise the notion of freedom, where the user is able to make

choices or choose directions depending on their particular requirements. However, on

interesting issue arising from this relates to the instructional paradigm underlying the

application. If it is learner-centred, then this form of control is consistent, but if teacher-

centred it is possible that set paths or sequences are considered the best way for learning

to be achieved. Balancing program and learner control so that both elements can be

achieved is yet another challenge for the design and development of C E L products.

Design

A s illustrated in Figure 5.17, 2 1 % of the responses (n=28) were coded to this theme,

with the Flexibility sub-theme being allocated the majority of responses. The

importance of the response distribution is that even though interactivity is primarily

perceived as characterised by Control and Communication, the Design of an application

is also a major attribute in the implementation of interactive elements. The response

examples provided represent the w a y in which these issues were identified.

15%

interface MuKmedia Options Flexibility Non-Linear Pedagogy Balance Audience Expense

Figure 5.17: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Design for Question 2

Interface

[Mike]: Good clear interface.

Multimedia

[Nick]: It should also include visual and sound characteristics.

[Adam]: Using an amalgamation of interesting media to soften the impact of just solid text information.

[Melissa]: Visual, audio, sound sensations

Flexibility

[Brett]: Flexibility of content to allow the product to react to user choices.

[Fleur]: Versatility

5-146

Non-Linear

[Trevor]: Non-linear; changing from minute to minute;

Pedagogy

[Anna]: More constructivist than instructivist.

Balance

[Kelle]: Making sure that there is a balance between the consumer and the computer - (the product) in order to keep thexonsumer interested.

Audience

[Nancy]: Audience can get the right and clear information.

Expense

[Fiona]: Its expensive, not readily available, not portable.

[Adam]: Tb.e_ ability to select the information the viewer wishes to see-atany given-time. Limiting the amount of information to be presented to the viewer and when the viewer is interested in a specific topic can zoom in and get more in depth information on it. Using an amalgamation of interesting media to soften the impact of just solid text information.

The inclusion of the final response under the Expense sub-theme is to illustrate that the

design and development of products that support this form of individual preference can

be time-consuming and therefore expensive. From the design perspective specifically it

reinforces the need to undertake extensive analysis of the product structure and

interactive options prior to its being programmed.

Individual

Only 3 % of the responses (n~4) related interactivity to the ability of the program to

provide facilities for the individual learner and adaptation of content based on the

individual's needs and responses. The following responses are representative of the

answers provided by participants.

Support

[Martin]: Making the user feel like they have learned or achieved something.

Sequence

[Graham]: Program sequencing is flexible and individualistic. Actively change program parameters to change outcomes.

Style

[Elizabeth]: The user is able to makes choices within the computer program. The program adjusts to the user's requirements and assesses the user's learning capabilities.

Summary

The purpose of the second question was to help in developing a better understanding of

interactivity by requesting participants to identify what they considered to be the major

characteristics of interactivity. A s with the first question, the themes of Control,

Communication, Engagement and Design emerged as the dominant features of

interactivity. However, whereas the responses for Question 1 clearly favoured the

Control and Communication themes, these four themes together were more evenly

distributed (Figure 5.12 and Figure 5.13) suggesting a wider range of expectations for

the general concept of interactivity than when linked explicitly to educational

applications.

When considered in terms of the specific responses offered, it is apparent that

participants have a clear expectation that interactive products will provide users with

control over the product. In addition, users are expected to be able to operate in an

environment that both enables an engaging experience with the program responsible for

at least some of the communication. The extent to which this is a function of the design

process rather than the individual's ability to interpret an interactive environment is a

critical question, as it is the ability of the user to believe they are working in a

communicative relationship that appears to be an important expectation. This is not only

confirmed by these particular responses but by the relationship with elements such as

narrative (Plowman, 1996a) and manipulation (Aldrich et al, 1998).

The following section examines the responses to Question 3, focusing specifically on

the benefits of interactivity to learning.

QUESTION 3: WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE MAJOR BENEFITS OF INTERACTIVITY TO THE LEARNING PROCESS?

Overview

The first two questions examined the functionality and characteristics of interactivity;

this question focuses on the outcomes of interactivity in the context of C E L

environments. The following distributions (Figure 5.18 and Figure 5.19) represent the

range of responses by gender and experience.

Figure 5.18: Percentage Responses by Gender and Theme to Question 3

W h e n the allocation of responses are compared by gender, the female participants

placed more emphasis on the Control theme whereas the males perceived the

Engagement as being the predominant benefit of interactivity for learning. In

comparison to the responses given to the first two questions, where little variation by

gender was apparent, these responses show more inconsistency between males and

females. This again underlies the potential importance of gender differences with

interactive applications and one that deserves greater emphasis in the research agenda

with respect to the design and development of C E L applications.

The variation between responses again reflects the different expectations and

perceptions based on experience. The Group A participants, having studied at least a

year of interactive technology subjects, identified the importance of the Engagement

5-149

and Learning themes, while those less experienced (Group B participants) identified the

Control, Engagement and Learning themes as the major benefits of interactivity to

learning. This in some way supports the notion that the individual characteristics of the

learner will have an impact on the effectiveness of the interactive experience and further

emphasises the importance of the design function.

Figure 5.19: Percentage Responses by Experience and Theme to Question 3

The following presentation examines each of the six major themes, and the related sub-

themes, with specific reference to the responses provided by the participants.

Engagement

With respect to the responses allocated to the Engagement theme, the benefits to

learning from interactivity were represented by the Participation, Interest, Motivation

and Exploration sub-themes, as illustrated in Figure 5.20.

Overall, 31% (n=39) of responses were allocated to this theme and samples of the range

of responses provided are included below to illustrate the ways in which participants

identified the themes.

5-150

Participation Attention Manipulation Motivation Interest Exploration Imagination

Figure 5.20: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Engagement for Question 3

Participation

[Mike]: That the learner is part of the learning process and feels involved and comfortable in working with the interactivity.

[Surian]: I think it is a better way to learn as you can take part in the learning process rather than just being told about it from a lecturer/teacher.

[Joel]: For school students it allows the individual to become involved in the information they are learning, whether through sound, visual or interaction with equipment such as a

mouse.

[Natasha]: It is an easier method of learning because it requires input, rather than sitting back and listening to someone speak the user has to get involved and think about what they're doing so they would understand more simply because it is a more interesting way

of learning.

Attention

[Graham]: Include user engagement rather than passivity.

[Melissa]: The user is not simply passive, they interact and engage and get a response.

Manipulation

[Simone]: Construction - it allows user to actively construct experience and add to control pace (to build confidence) and give sense of participation in o w n learning process and

possible skills to continue construction unaided.

Motivation

[Andi]: Enhanced motivation, ttaining, cognitive processing.

5-151

Interest

[Trevor]: The user would not be just passively absorbing facts, the program they are using would be more interesting and would provide a means of applying one's knowledge.

Exploration

[Scott]: Hopefully greater user involvement and understanding through greater exploration if the topic.

[Cheryl]: W h e n the learner can do or experiment with the concepts given then learning is more likely to occur because they did it themselves, were interested to follow the concepts to a conclusion, were free to experiment in a safe enviroment.

Imagination

[Peter]: It teaches communication skills, requires imagination, helps develop lateral thinking.

Engagement was one of the stronger themes to emerge and emphasises the expectations

of users that they will become involved in the learning process. While a computer-

mediated human.human interaction can emphasise this aspect learning, implementation

in C D - R O M and Internet web-sites for the independent learner is more complex. Based

on these responses however, it would appear users expect some form of active facility

with any humamcomputer interaction, rather than just being presented with information

which then has to be interpreted. In other words, there is an expectation that the

computer will provide some means to deconstruct the information according to a user's

particular requirements. While this can be achieved technically, the time and materials

required may be beyond those normally available to the educational profession.

Communication

The importance of communication in the interactive process is demonstrated by its

featuring in the responses to each of three questions. However, with respect to this

question on interactivity and learning it did not feature as highly (11% or 14 of the

responses). A possible reason for this might relate to users being more focused on their

own learning and therefore Engagement and Control were perceived as being more

important. Given this condition, it may be that it is the underlying communication

provided by the application which enables both effective control and subsequent

engagement.

5-152

One of the areas that will be covered in more detail in the following chapters is the

extent to which communication and conversation can be successfully embedded in the

interactive medium. The following diagram (Figure 5.21) illustrates the distribution of

responses and is followed by exemplar responses.

Figure 5,21: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Communication for Question 3

Feedback

[David]: To get instant feedback, right or wrong. Keeping the user interested in the product.

Making learning easier.

[Darren]: The feedback gained by both product and user aids in targeting main areas of

learning.

Input Loop

[Sam]: You are able to ask questions and receive some sort of answer instantly which can

be very specific for an individual's learning needs.

Two-Way

[Emma]: It allows the user to ask questions, or if a message is not understood the user can specify this. W h e n learning by simply reading information it is not possible to do this. Most

people find it a necessity to ask questions when learning.

Closely associated with communication and conversation is the control theme. The

difference between the learner controlling the application and being in control may be a

critical element in determining the success of the communication and two-way flow of

information. This issue is the focus of the following section.

5-153

Control

W h a t is particularly interesting about these responses (see Figure 5.22), and those

described in the two chapters following, is the w a y in which users clearly want to be in

control of the interactive process, but have no objection to being guided or directed

towards certain gaols. Given the amount of research on Control, which has typically

undertaken a binary comparison of Program vs. Learner Control, the responses and

observations obtained from this section of the study suggest that control is a m u c h more

subtle aspect of the overall interactive process. With respect to this question, 2 0 %

(n=26) of responses were allocated to the Control theme and the following examples

present a selection of these responses.

15%

12%

9%

6%

3%

0%

/

s >J

—9

/

_ _ • _ •

9 Z=7 Pr-p /

_z ~~* s Navigation Self-Pacing Choices Content In Control Branching Learner

Figure 5.22: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Communication for Question 3

Navigation

[Allan]: The user has the freedom to navigate through the product, which can be designed to respond to the requirements of the user.

Self Pacing

[Suzanne]: The ability to learn at your own pace. Feeling in control of your own learning. Being able to access a wide range of information to build your own level of knowledge and understanding.

[Elizabeth]: The user is able to learn at their own pace.

[Tatiana]: Substantial, as the learner is able to proceed at his/her own pace. Is able to determine what he can go through quickly and what he needs to spend more time on.

[Nicholas]: The fact that users can determine how and how fast they learn are the major benefits of interactive learning - we all learn at different paces.

5-154

Choices

[Ivy]: More "hands-on" experience; being able to select categories at will hence making the program(s) more user friendly.

In Control

[Kathy]: Enables the user to be in control of their own learning through a more enjoyable medium with the possibility of immediate feedback.

[Sushila]: User can work at own pace; learning paths can be retraced and reassessed; User can abort process at any time; no time limits to learning.

[Simon]: Student can tailor learning to personal needs - (to some extent); variety of system responses makes for more interesting experience; potential to include more information without it needing to be relevant to all, or most students; feeling of control over the learning experience may increase student's acceptance and enthusiasm.

Branching

[Solveig]: Another benefit would be that a stage could be repeated when the user was unsure of a stage just completed; repetition is a good learning process.

[Adam]: The user can learn at his/her own pace; the user doesn't feel as though they're looking at a dictionary; the user branches off into his/her own direction in the learning process via interactivity; younger users feel more comfortable using graphically intensive programs that interact with them.

Learner

[Elizabeth]: The user can control what they want to learn.

Users need to be able to choose a menu item, move to another display or control the

playing of a movie. However, they need to have that control in the context of the

learning strategy being employed and, more importantly, be aware of when that control

can be used. It is not so much that the user has to have overall control, but rather

understanding and control of their role in the learning process. Of course, this cannot be

achieved without a suitable form of communication having been established.

Design

For this theme, 8% (n=10) of the responses emphasised issues of particular importance

to the design theme, as detailed in the following.

Interface

[Sushila]: User can abort process at any time.

5-155

Multimedia

[Anthony]: Easier to understand the messages via sight and sound, not just text.

Alternatives

[Robert]: To enable the user to obtain efficiently information about what they are researching and/or learning.

Non-Linear

[Allan]: Moving away from sequential (chapter l...n) type learning.

Balanced

[Travis]: Establishes a balance in the learning process which allows the student to achieve to a high level.

Currency

[Kelle]: Y o u can usually rely on the fact that it has been updated recently and is correct at the time, therefore your interactivity is current and positive.

When considered in terms of the question - the benefits of interactivity to learning -

these responses indicate that underpinning the overall interactive experience of the

learner are the structures and strategies implemented by the designer. The extent to

which the learner effectively processes these will be critical to the overall success of the

interactive experience.

Individual

The value of an adaptive and individualised encounter with a C E L application would

appear to be manifested when the user is fully aware of the extent to which they can

pursue content and investigate ideas. If the application has not provided them with this

orientation and sense of purpose, then the ability of the user to control that individual

experience will be diminished. For this theme, 1 1 % (n=14) of responses were coded to

this theme and its related sub-themes and a selection of responses are shown below.

Knowledge Building

[Suzanne]: Being able to access a wide range of information to build your own level of knowledge and understanding

[Luke]: There are no set patterns in the acquisition of knowledge. You can see many differing points of view and come to your o w n conclusions.

Ownership

[Graham]: Users get a sense of ownership in their own learning process.

[Richard]: To have the opportunity to concentrate on their strengths and weaknesses.

Relevance

[Bryn]: relevance of instruction to specific users.

Supportive

[Martin]: It gives every student the chance to get personal attention that they may not get from the teacher while in class.

Thinking

[Linda]: Better thinking skills, to learn h o w to interact with a different medium, not usually used.

[Brea]: Forces user to think about subject and actively choose where to go within the product

Sequencing

[Simon]: Student can tailor learning to personal needs (to some extent).

Non-Threatening

[Fiona]: It would also introduce people to the technology without it being threatening.

Learning Styles

[Allan]: The ability of the product to custom-make itself each time it is being used depending on the requirements of the user.

[Josef]: Different people interpret different information in different ways depending on the information presented or presentation style. Interactivity allows the user to guide the way information is presented in order to make the learning most efficient.

The ability of the application to cater for individual requirements is closely linked to the

control provided to the learner and the subsequent engagement and communication.

Ultimately it is the learning outcomes that are important, and the benefits of

interactivity to this are presented in the following section.

5-157

Learning

For this question, 2 0 % (n=25) responses were allocated to the broad theme of Learning,

as illustrated in Figure 5.23. This reinforces the ideas introduced in Chapter 1 that the

promise of interactivity is one where learning is enhanced. As demonstrated by the

following set of exemplar responses, learning is understood to be one of the major

benefits of working with interactive C E L products.

Easier Information Meaningful Self-Directed Assessment Distance

Coding

Develop mental

Figure 5.23: Percentage Allocation of Responses to Learning for Question 3

Easier [Andrew]: More exciting therefore easy to remember; It's not boring text book learning;

Information Coding

[Ruth]: Makes learning more active, allows for better active coding of information to take place through the student's activity with the program. Makes learning more meaningful

hence student should maintain more knowledge, longer - (hopefully).

[Philip]: Interactivity can prevent learning from becoming boring because the user must stay alert and play an active role. The absence of boredom allows for better retention of

information by the learner.

Meaningful

[Anna]: Greater understanding gained from a more constructivist experience.

Knowledge Transfer

[Georgia]: Y o u actually put your education into practice.

5-158

Self-Directed

[Mark P]: It can be done wherever a computer is available.

Faster

[Kelle]: It is a much faster process of learning where you can ask questions and gain insight into the product quickly and efficiently.

Distance

[Nancy]: Getting benefits with other people with the computer - for example, link with the rest of world.

Developmental

[Kahli]: M o v e up levels as your skill increases. Save your progress and see in charts how you are going

Summary

This question focused on the benefits to learning that might be expected from

interactivity. In comparison to the functions (Question 1) and characteristics (Question

2) of interactivity, the responses provided by participants to this question were spread

across each of the six major themes (see Figure 5.3). Nevertheless, aspects such as

Communication, Control and Engagement were predominant components of the

responses reinforcing their importance as outcomes of computer-based learning

interactions. A distinction with this set of responses was that variations by gender were

more evident, suggesting that such differences in learner characteristics may impact

their interpretation and subsequent engagement with interactive products. Variations

between responses based on experience were also evident, and were consistent with

those identified by the first two questions.

Overall, the responses reinforce the need for designers to be aware of individual

differences, to maximise the level of two-way communication between learner and

application and to support the learner being in control of their learning activities.

The following conclusion provides an integrative summary of the responses to each of

the three questions.

5-159

CONCLUSION

Addressing the Research Question

This chapter focused on the expectations that people have from interactivity in the

context of computer-based learning environments. Using a survey instrument,

participants were asked to respond to three questions focusing on the structure,

characteristics and benefits of interactivity. The results were analysed and allocated to

themes (or nodes) using the N U D * I S T qualitative research software and discussed in

terms of their overall distribution as well as in relation to variations manifested as a

result of the gender and prior experience of participants.

Based on the responses provided, participants were able to concisely articulate their

expectations of what interactivity should offer in the context of C E L environments.

With respect to these expectations, the responses were classified in terms of six themes

-Engagement, Control, Communication, Design, the Individual and Learning, which

were consistent with both the conditions of interactivity discussed in Chapter 2 and the

practice of interactivity discussed in Chapter 3. However, an issue which arose from a

comparison of the survey data and the literature review is that the implementation of the

interactivity, the output of the design and development process, has not consistently

delivered the functionality expected by the learner. There are concise classifications of

interactivity in the literature with which the participants' expectations are comparable,

and yet interactivity, as a concept, continues to be regarded as complex construct and

difficult to define (eg. Rose, 1999).

This discrepancy between expectations of participants, the theoretical benefits of

interactivity and its vague or multifaceted definition suggests that different forms of

interactivity m a y support its resolution. Given the benefits of narrative identified by

Plowman (1996a, 1997), the potential of theatre and performance as one projection of

narrative (Laurel, 1991) m a y provide such a means and warrants ongoing investigation.

If interactive learning environments can be created where the learner takes on a more

participatory role and becomes an active player in the performance, then the interactive

constructs m a y better match the expectations of the user. Achieving this places

additional onus on the design and development team to conceptualise and implement

5-160

the ways in which the product can enable the active, participating learner. Strategies to

achieve this are considered in Chapter 8.

Gender and Experience

The responses were also considered with respect to variations between both gender and

experience. For the first two questions, there was little variation in gender on

expectations of its structure or characteristics. However, when examined in terms of

benefits to learning, there were more marked differences between the responses from

male and female participants (Figure 5.18). The way in which the responses were coded

suggests that the priorities of learners with respect to interactive constructs might vary

based on their gender, indicating a need for further research in this area.

This may also be true for other variables such as culture, which was not addressed in the

current study. With respect to the prior experience of participants, the responses showed

a degree of variation (Figure 5.6, Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.19), and the distributions are

consistent with research on learner control that has indicated that increased control

becomes more useful as the user's experience increases (eg. Alessi & Trollip, 1991).

People with different levels of experience may expect different forms of interactivity to

support their learning.

As has been emphasised in the presentation and analysis of the survey responses, these

variations between groups suggest that the characteristics of the individual learner are

essential determinants of the success of C E L environments. Creating products that are

more flexible and adaptable to the characteristics and preferences of the individual user

is consequently paramount.

The Next Step

The responses to these questions highlight the expectations and perceptions which users

have in relation to computer-based educational technology. Presentation of information

is clearly an important aspect of any C E L application, but without effective interactivity

manifested through communication, involvement, control and adaptation learners

believe its ultimate success can be diminished.

5-161

As will be demonstrated in the following chapters, this theme is reinforced through the

different interpretations of the various constructs of interactivity. To extend the analysis

of the way in which people interpret interactivity, Chapter 6 focuses on h o w people link

specific exemplars of interactivity to support of the learning process.

CHAPTER 6:

INTERACTIVITY AND LEARNING

INTRODUCTION

The word interactive, when used to describe a computer-based learning resource, has

come to be understood to represent some form of advantage to the user - better

communication, more active learning, quicker achievement of objectives. However, the

research documented in Chapters 1,2 and 3 presents a different picture - one in which

the affects of computer-based interactive environments have been indeterminate and a

challenge remaining to make these applications work better. The procedure presented in

this chapter is designed to examine the micro aspects of interactivity, to extend our

understanding of h o w people perceive the relationship between interactivity and

learning, and address the research question derived in Chapter 2:

In what ways are interactive elements considered to impact on

the learning process?

The methodology detailed in this chapter involved a procedure whereby participants

were asked to indicate whether or not a set of 66 interactive examples supported

learning, based on the dimensions of Learner-Control and Program-Control. Participants

were asked to consider each of the examples and allocate it to one of 4 categories on a

2x2 matrix, with Program-Control and User-Control on one dimension and Supports-

Learning and Hinders-Learning on the second dimension. The number of times an

example was allocated to each category was recorded and compared in terms of

experience, gender and in total. W h e n considered as a single group, the majority of

examples were allocated to the Support-Learning dimension. However, specific

examples were either rated as hindering the learning process or their impact on learning

was split between hindering and supporting.

In comparing the allocation of examples, differences were observed between the

participants as a whole, and when viewed in terms of experience and/or gender. This

reinforces the variations in gender and experience identified in Chapter 5 and highlights

the issue of individual preferences with using interactivity for computer-based learning.

6-163

While interactivity can appear appropriate and effective in terms of a large group of

users, when smaller groupings are considered the variations in effectiveness can

increase. Therefore a challenge for designers is to produce software applications that not

only demonstrate accepted forms of interactivity, but also cater in some way to those

who react to interactions in individual ways. This challenge may be met by reassessing

the way in which the learner is conceptualised within the overall computer-based

learning process.

METHODOLOGY

Derivation of Statements

The procedure documented in the following was designed to examine the different ways

people link interactivity and learning. The extent to which the user acts (learner control)

and the application reacts (program control) are integral to computer-based interactions.

There are many means by which interactivity can be implemented for the learner, such

as choosing a menu option, navigating a virtual environment or assigning meaning to a

content domain. Similarly, program control can range from the type of response made to

user actions to adapting the presentation based on user responses.

To provide participants with a wide range of interactive examples, the interactive

prescriptions associated with learning theory (Chapter 2) and the taxonomies of Schwier

& Misanchuk (1993) and Sims (1997a) were used to inform the creation of a set of

examples of interactivity. In effect, I linked the many ways in which interactivity has

been implemented within the theoretical framework to generate a set of examples based

on learner-control and program-control. This provided a context by which the two-way

aspects of communication (the learner and the program) could be assessed in terms of

the interactive process.

The following two sections detail the examples of interactivity assigned to the user and

program control dimensions. Because interactivity and learning are being considered,

the term User-Control was adopted to differentiate the action from the outcome. The

examples were written in such a way that participants could interpret them subjectively,

as if they were using an application. The final syntax of each statement was determined

6-164

after a process of refining the words used with members of the student population and

academic staff who did not participate in the study.

User Control

The user-control dimension of interactivity includes actions such as navigation to a

different part of the application, choice about the display of content and adaptation of

the material to suit current learning requirements. Table 6.1 details the examples created

for each of these actions; the number identifying each example corresponds to the

sequence in which it was presented to participants.

Action

Navigation

Choice

Adaptation

Example of Interactivity

1. Choosing to move forward through a sequence of displays 2. Choosing to move forward to a new display 3. Choosing to move backward to a previous display 4. Choosing to move backward through a sequence of displays 5. Choosing to jump to a new display 6. Choosing to jump to a previous display 21. Accessing additional content through hyperlinks 35. Pacing myself through a learning task 39. Navigating through a "virtual" learning environment 45. Using a map of the lesson structure to choose which topic to study 7. Controlling the speed at which information is displayed 8. Using a scroll-bar to control the display of text information 9. Controlling the presence or absence of audio 10. Controlling the volume of audio 11. Accessing video controls 12. Moving graphical objects on a display 16. Choosing help or assistance to explain the content 17. Choosing help or assistance to answer a question 18. Selecting a topic from a menu 19. Posing a question about the content 20. Taking notes during the instructional sequence 22. Communicating with other learners 26. Choosing m y own learning path 27. Choosing m y own learning goals 40. Choosing m y own level of participation 41. Evaluating m y own progress in a set of learning tasks 42. Choosing different ways to represent content 43. Exploring the reasons behind feedback to answers 46. Determining the sequence in which the learning tasks are completed 30. Rearranging content to suit m y current learning needs 33. Being able to vary the type of interaction depending on my current learning task 47. Testing m y current level of knowledge at any time 49. Planning m y own learning 50. Manipulating objects in a realistic environment 55. Being able to vary the way I approach a learning task 57. Selecting the media elements used to display a single learning concept 58. Selecting the amount of content for a learning task 59. Choosing when to progress to another level of complexity 60. Selecting the context in which learning tasks are presented 61. Controlling all facets of the learning task 62. Choosing from multiple representations of content 66 Modifying the sequence to include my own learning experiences _| Table 6.1: Examples of Interactivity Assigned to User-Control

6-165

Program Control

The concept of program control refers to the extent to which the program determines

what the user can do, the way in which material is presented or the responses provided

to user actions. In Table 6.2 these actions are represented by the concepts of response,

delivery and design. It was decided to include examples 13,14 and 15 under program

control, as the form of response is a function of the program design. As with the learner

control examples, the expression was intended to reflect the interactivity as it would be

encountered during the learning process.

Action

Response

Delivery

Design

Example of Interactivity

13. Responding to a question with a text response 14. Responding to a question with a mouse click 15, Responding to a question by moving objects on the display 23. Frequently required to answer computer-generated questions 24. Having content displayed based on m y current level of understanding 25. Not being able to respond to material being presented 28. Having the frequency of interactions varied according to m y ability 31. Receiving prompts and assistance with an interaction 32. Being presented with similar interactions for different learning tasks 34. Having the structure of an interaction varied according to my performance 36. Varying presentation of content to meet m y current learning stage 44. Having lesson structure individualised to my current learning needs 48. Having the learning sequence dependent on m y mastery of content 51. Receiving constant feedback on m y progress 52. Receiving content in pre-determined "chunks" 53. Providing new learners with frequent interactions 54. Varying the frequency of interactions for experienced learners 63. Having interactions varied according to the current learning task 64. Having the system adapt pacing based on m y previous choices 65. Having the system advise on appropriate choices 29. Having tools available to support m y current learning task 37. Working in a "virtual" environment 38. Using a metaphor to provide meaning for the learning tasks 56. Using a range of multimedia elements to display a single learning concept

Table 6.2: Examples of Interactivity Assigned to Program Control

Process

Devising a means by which participants could indicate their interpretation and

understanding of this set of interactive examples meant developing a procedure by

which the control and learning dimensions could be differentiated easily. To achieve

this, a form of the Pile-Sort technique was adopted, where participants are asked to sort

cards according to criteria that have particular meaning for them (Holloway, 1997).

6-166

For this procedure, each of the interactivity examples was reproduced on a small card

and a 2-dimensional grid represented on cardboard, as shown in Figure 6.1. Participants

could then place each of the cards onto the grid according to their interpretation.

Program Control

Supports Learning

r L n J

Hinders Learning

\

y

User Control

Figure 6.1: Layout for Allocation of Interactivity Examples

Pilot testing with three non-participants showed that without restricting placement

conditions, cards would be positioned on all areas of the board, including the central

and border lines. T o simplify the decision-making process, the instructions were

modified so that participants were asked to position the cards in one of the four

quadrants only. Prior to commencing the task, participants were given the opportunity

to ask questions to clarify or confirm the requirements of the task.

To complete the task, participants were asked to read a set of instructions (see Appendix

C.l) and then allocate each example to one of the four quadrants. Each participant

received the set of cards in the same sequence and placed each example in:

• Quadrant 1 if they perceived it best represented interactivity under program

control and supporting learning;

• Quadrant 2 if they perceived it best represented interactivity under user control

and supporting learning;

6-167

• Quadrant 3 if they perceived it best represented interactivity under user control

and hindering learning; or

• Quadrant 4 if they perceived it best represented interactivity under program

control and hindering learning.

The cards were typically placed in two basic ways; participants either put each card in

an available space in the quadrant (Figure 6.2) or placed the cards in a pile (Figure 6.3).

Figure 6.2: Cards distributed across each quadrant

Figure 6.3: Cards piled in each quadrant

6-168

After each participant had completed the task, each card was assigned a number (1-4)

corresponding to its allocated quadrant position, and the data entered into a spreadsheet

format using Microsoft Excel (see Appendix C.2 for a sample of the raw data). Of the

69 participants who undertook this activity, one set of data from Group B was lost due

to a computer malfunction during data entry. Consequently, 68 sets of data were used

for this component of the study.

Data Representation

To report on the data in terms of how each of the examples were allocated, a metric was

devised to represent the extent to which the responses were directed to each of the

quadrants. First, the total number of allocations to each quadrant was calculated for each

example and then represented as a percentage of the total number of examples. To

determine a trend for this data, a single score was calculated for the X (control) and Y

(learning) axis using the following formula, where Q n represents the different quadrant:

X = (Q2 + Q4) - (Qi + Q3)

Y = (Q, + Q2) - (Q3 + CU)

The resultant data for Example 1 is shown in Table 6.3 below.

1. Choosina to move forward through a sequence of displays

Quadrant

Data fn=68)

Percentage

X (Control)

Y (Learning)

1: PC-SL

13 0.19

0.56

0.62

2: UC-SL

42 0.62^

3: UC-HL

11 0.16

4: PC-HL

2 0.03

Table 6.3: Representative Data Collection for Example 1

To provide a direct link between the data and the quadrants, I specified the X- and Y-

axes as ranging from -1 to +1, and created a set of X/Y coordinates for each of the

quadrants. Using the data in Table 6.3, the following coordinates were calculated, and

then graphically represented using the layout shown in Figure 6.4:

Q1X -0.19 Q1y +0.19

Q2X +0.62 Q2y +0.62

Q3x +0.16 Q3y -0.16

Q4„ -0.03 Q4y -0.03

1. Choosing to move forward through a sequence of displays!

Program CONTROL • Learner

• Combined Groups • Trend

Figure 6.4: Combined Data for Example 1

The red diamonds represent the percentage weighting (expressed as a decimal) within

each quadrant and the blue circle the trend. From this set of responses, the interactive

example Choosing to move forward through a sequence of displays is considered to

Support Learning from the perspective of User Control. Even so, based on the data in

Table 6.3 and the representation in Figure 6.4, Example 1 was rated as Hindering

Learning by 1 7 % (n=13) of the participants. This is an important reminder that

individuals will interpret interactive conditions according to their particular needs and

abilities. Being able to cater for this is a challenge for educators regardless of the

learning environment.

The form of data representation described above is used in the following sections to

provide a comprehensive analysis of the ways in which the allocation of examples was

made. This form of graphical presentation also enables comparisons to be made based

on the experience and gender of participants.

6-170

RESULTS

This section presents the results of this procedure in terms of the combined groups as

well as by experience (Group A and Group B ) and gender.

Control

The distribution shown in Figure 6.5 illustrates the trend for each of the examples in

terms of their original assignment to either Program Control (red indicators) or User

Control (blue indicators) as described in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2. The distribution

shows that apart from three of the examples, participants allocated each of the examples

to its corresponding half of the matrix. The three red circles, relating to responding to

questions by text, mouse or object actions (Examples 13,14 and 15), were created as

program control examples but positioned by participants in the user-control segment.

Program

o Responding A Delivery o Design o Navigation + Choice X Adaptation

Figure 6.5: Allocation of Examples by Control

6-171

This outcome suggests that participants consider that the type of response is under their

control and the ability to make such responses supports the learning process, even

though the form of response is actually a characteristic of the program. Nevertheless, a

number of examples were also considered to hinder or affect the learning process. With

reference to Figure 6.5, four of the examples were considered to hinder the learning

process and those below the green line represent an additional 9 examples that were

rated by at least 3 0 % of participants as hindering learning. This phenomenon is also

manifest in the distribution by experience and gender.

The finding that individual participants rated selected examples as hindering the

learning process adds support to the discussion from Chapter 5, which identified the

characteristics of the individual learner as important to the success of CEL. It is not so

much that computer-based learning packages provide individualised learning, but that

they can potentially provide the individual learner with effective learning experiences.

Experience

The participants, as discussed in Chapter 4, could be divided into groups of experienced

(Group A ) and less experienced (Group B ) in the context of the design and development

of educational technology applications. The way in which the examples were allocated

based on experience is illustrated in Figure 6.6 on the following page.

These present a similar pattern to the combined groups (Figure 6.5), although the

allocation from the more experienced participants (Group A ) was directed towards the

limits of the quadrant. This suggested they were had a clearer perspective on the extent

to which the examples would hinder or support the learning process.

In terms of the extent to which these examples might hinder learning, 7 were rated by

Group A in this category and 5 by Group B. Examples rated by at least 3 0 % of

participants as hindering learning are located between the horizontal axis and the green

line. Group A identified 9 examples in this area, the same number allocated by

participants from Group B.

With reference to Figure 6.6, it should be noted that some examples received the same

X/Y scores, and are therefore represented by a single position on the diagram, and the

proximity of individual points do not necessarily identify the same examples

Program -CONTROL • User

i Group A • Group B

Figure 6.6: Allocation of Examples by Experience

Gender

The distribution illustrated in Figure 6.7 (on the following page) represents the way in

which the examples of interactivity were allocation by gender. A s with the distribution

by experience, the majority of examples were rated within the Supports-Learning

quadrants whereas a small number were rated as Hindering Learning. Those examples

positioned between the horizontal axis and the green line represent those where there

was a degree of uncertainty on their effect on learning.

For this analysis, the male and female participants both allocated 5 examples primarily

to the Hinder Learning quadrants. With respect to examples that might potentially

hinder learning, 7 were allocated by the male participants and 12 by the female

participants. This indicates a tendency for the female participants to be more

differentiated in the way interactivity was perceived to influence the learning process.

0) •c

o a a. co

O

z z a: ifi

(A

cu ~_ if

-1

• • • • • * * •

• • •»

• . ' * • • • • •

• *••• • •

• _ • • •

TT"« IT

• • •

•

Program -

0

-CONTROL User

• Male • Female

Figure 6.7: Allocation of Examples by Gender

INTERACTIVITY AND LEARNING

As shown in the above distributions, the majority of the examples assessed by the

participants were considered to support learning. However, a number of examples were

consistently rated as hindering learning and others were considered by at least 3 0 %

(n=20) of the participants to hinder the learning process. The following discussion

examines more specifically the ways in which the examples were allocated and, where

appropriate, provides an illustration of the allocations for the individual examples.

With reference to the distributions in Figure 6.5, Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.7 and to

provide a context for the discussion, the examples are considered in terms of six discrete

patterns. The first four focus on those examples, based on the X/Y score, that were

allocated to each of the quadrants. The remaining two patterns focus on those which

suggested a split between supporting and hindering learning from the program and user

6-174

control perspective - those examples that were allocated by at least 3 0 % of participants

to one of the Hinders-Learning quadrants.

As the data was being collected and analysed it became apparent that while the

examples were allocated in the same way by the majority of participants, each example

was allocated to each quadrant by at least one participant. Because computer-based

learning is very much an individual experience, I felt that it would be advantageous to

examine the extent to which individual examples were allocated across quadrants in

addition to their allocation by the majority of participants. Using the X/Y coordinates

detailed previously, a division was made where 7 0 % allocated the example as

supporting learning and 3 0 % as hindering learning, meaning that the trend location

would be at or below the 0.4 point on the grid, as shown in each of the following

distributions. The characteristics therefore for each of the six patterns are as follows:

• Program Control - Supports Learning (PC/SL): those examples allocated by at

least 7 0 % of participants (n=48) to quadrant 1;

• User Control - Supports Learning (UC/SL): those examples allocated by at least

7 0 % of participants (n=48) to quadrant 2;

• User Control - Hinders Learning (UC/HL): those examples allocated by at least

7 0 % of participants (n=48) to quadrant 3;

• User Control - Possibly Hinders Learning (UC/7HL): those examples allocated

by at least 3 0 % of participants (n=20) to quadrant 3;

• Program Control - Hinders Learning (PC/HL): those examples allocated by at

least 7 0 % of participants (n=48) to quadrant 4;

• Program Control - Possibly Hinders Learning (PC/7HL): those examples

allocated by at least 3 0 % of participants (n=20) to quadrant 4;

The following provides details of the findings and interpretation for each of these six

categories. It should be noted that the examples attributed to each of the categories are

those which were allocated by all participants.

6-175

Program Control - Supports Learning

The examples detailed in Table 6.4 are those which were rated by at least 7 0 % of

participants as representing Program Control and Supporting Learning. In brief, these

perceptions confirm the user expectations that the program plays an integral and

supportive role in the learning process.

Action

Response

Delivery

Design

Example of Interactivity

** No Allocation **

24. Having content displayed based on m y current level of understanding 28. Having the frequency of interactions varied according to m y ability 31. Receiving prompts and assistance with an interaction 32. Being presented with similar interactions for different learning tasks 34. Having the structure of an interaction varied according to my performance 36. Varying presentation of content to meet m y current learning stage 44. Having lesson structure individualised to m y current learning needs 48. Having the learning sequence dependent on my mastery of content 51. Receiving constant feedback on m y progress 54. Varying the frequency of interactions for experienced learners 63. Having interactions varied according to the current learning task 64. Having the system adapt pacing based on m y previous choices 65. Having the system advise on appropriate choices 29. Having tools available to support m y current learning task 37. Working in a "virtual" environment 38. Using a metaphor to provide meaning for the learning tasks 56. Using a range of multimedia elements to display a single learning concept

Table 6.4: Examples of Program Controlled Interactivity Allocated to Supporting Learning

The recognition by participants that program control of delivery is likely to support the

learning process acknowledges the value of applications adapting to the learner. The

extent to which this adaptation is generic or individualised will also impact the

effectiveness of the application, as these responses support the expectation by learners

that the program will interpret their individual status.

Nevertheless, the responses to these examples varied depending on the group, as

illustrated in the allocations detailed in Figure 6.8. Example 32 - Being presented with

similar interactions for different learning tasks was considered to be less supportive to

learning by the experienced participants of Group A and the females participants. The

reason that m e n and w o m e n show variation is unclear. However, the fact that there was

a difference, even when compared to those with or without experience, indicates the

need for a more detailed analysis regarding gender differences and interactivity in future

research.

X -1

-1

Program - -CONTROL

1

User

o Group A • Trend-A o Group B • Trend-B

_ o Q. Q. _ CO _

a: < UJ

•o c

-1 0 1

Program CONTROL User

: Male • Trend-Male o Female • Trend-Female

Figure 6.8: Allocation of Example 32 by Experience and Gender

With respect to the experienced group, it is probable that their exposure to the

development of multimedia applications, through university studies, enabled them to

consider variations in development as appropriate. Group A had at least one year

exposure to multimedia applications, and may have rejected the idea of frequent

interactions because they did not perceive themselves as new learners. This highlights

an important issue in terms of developing effective learning - the way the application is

structured will affect learners of different experience levels - and supports the

observations made in Chapter 5 with respect to variations in expectations of

interactivity based on experience.

In the same way that individualisation and adaptation were perceived as significant

indicators of interactivity, a C E L application needs to be able to adjust or adapt to the

learner's demand, and this may well have to be controlled by the learner. Such

observations also highlight the extent to which development of applications must focus

on the individual learner in addition to the content and interface.

User Control - Supporting Learning

Of the 42 examples of user control, 23 were rated by all participants as supporting

learning, as detailed in Table 6.5. In the same way that participants expect the program

(or application) to play an active role in the learning process, there is also an

6-177

expectation that they have equal access to control options to maximise the learning

experience. In comparison to the Program Control - Supports Learning pattern, these

examples tended to he more widely dispersed (see Figure 6.9 following), suggesting

that participants were less able to differentiate their effect on learning.

Action

Navigation

Choice

Adaptation

Example of Interactivity

2. Choosing to move forward to a new display 5. Choosing to jump to a new display 21. Accessing additional content through hyperlinks 35. Pacing myself through a learning task 39. Navigating through a "virtual" learning environment 45. Using a map of the lesson structure to choose which topic to study 7. Controlling the speed at which information is displayed 9. Controlling the presence or absence of audio 10. Controlling the volume of audio 11. Accessing video controls 16. Choosing help or assistance to explain the content 18. Selecting a topic from a menu 22. Communicating with other learners 26. Choosing my own learning path 27. Choosing my own learning goals 42. Choosing different ways to represent content 43. Explorinq the reasons behind feedback to answers 30. Rearranging content to suit m y current learning needs 33. Being able to vary the type of interaction depending on my current learning task 47. Testing my current level of knowledge at any time 50. Manipulating objects in a realistic environment 55. Being able to vary the way I approach a learning task 66. Modifying the sequence to include m y own learning experiences J

Table 6.5: Examples of User Controlled Interactivity Allocated to Supporting Learning

This polarisation of responses reinforces the complex issues which surround the

"learner control" debate (Reeves, 1993). While many of the research studies focused on

whether Learner Control or Program Control was conducive to learning, the

distributions represented here demonstrate that both are critical - as would be expected

in an environment where communication is considered as integral to the underlying

framework. The learner requires control, but the program is expected to respond to that

control and the effectiveness of that response is perceived to impact learning.

The variation in the allocation of examples is represented in Figure 6.9. The red circles

(UC-SL) indicate the 23 examples that were allocated to the User-Control - Supports-

Learning quadrant by all participants. However those classified under "Other" represent

the distribution of the same examples, but based from the perspective of either the

gender or experience groups. In other words, while the allocation by all participants is

in one quadrant, when examined by different groupings the distribution of allocations

becomes more varied.

6-178

Program -CONTROL • User

• Other • UC-SL

Figure 6.9: Differential Allocation of Examples to the UC-SL Quadrant

Overall this distribution illustrates the different perceptions that individuals have in the

way in which interactivity will or will not support their learning process. The personal

nature of learning is therefore emphasised and the strategies by which computer-

technology is applied to the learning process is one means by which these differences

might be catered for, and is to some extent possibly expected by the users. The idea that

interactivity in itself is a means to individualisation, as discussed in Chapter 3, is not

borne out by these allocation of interactive examples.

To illustrate this, Example 27 - Choosing my own learning goals, was considered by all

participants to support the learning process and confirms that learners and users believe

they have a concise understanding of what they might wish to achieve. For the designer,

this suggests providing the learner with a clear idea of what they can expect to achieve

from the application and h o w they might best achieve that goal. In essence, it is the

responsibility of the developer to produce a profile of the user to maximise the benefits

of their encounters with the content material. While this is manifested in the internet

6-179

environment with cookies1 and similar devices, it has yet to become an element in C E L

environments. However, as with all the examples assessed in this phase of the study,

some participants rated Example 27 as hindering learning and this might reflect a lack

of experience or confidence in self-directed learning.

Interesting however, Example 40 - Choosing my own level of participation was rated

less consistently and suggests that while users are confident with their learning goals -

that is, they know what they want to achieve from an interactive encounter - they are

less certain of determining their level of participation. The importance of these two

examples is that they highlight the variance in allocation between individual

participants. The following discussion continues the analysis with consideration of

examples interpreted as Hindering Learning.

User Control - Hinders Learning

The third quadrant used for the allocation of interactive examples referred to those that

were considered to hinder learning. Table 6.6 represents the allocations made by all

participants (C), by experience (Groups A and B ) and gender (Male and Female). The

tick (•) indicates which group of participants allocated the particular example to the

UC/HL quadrant. A s detailed in Table 6.6 only Example 61 - Controlling all facets of

the learning task was considered to fall into this category by the participants as a

combined group. This provides another interesting reflection on the notion of learner

control - too much is perceived to be detrimental to the learning process. Given the

expectation (see Chapter 5) of communication as an integral component of interactivity,

participants may be acknowledging that excessive control, without feedback or

response, is not what is expected or desired. The issue therefore is what roles should the

program and the learner be assigned to ensure that the learner is able to work through

the material in an informed manner, while the program remains supportive and

communicative. It m a y be that access to control balances are required that are

negotiated and modified by both learner and program, as proposed by Kirsch (1997).

1 Cookies are computer-generated files that store information about users and particular web-sites. The files are stored on the client machine and when the user accesses that web-site, the client is interrogated for a cookie and, if found, is used to present information consistent with the user's previous visit.

6-180

Example

20. Taking notes during the instructional sequence

46. Determining the sequence in which the learning tasks are completed

49. Planning my own learning

58. Selecting the amount of content for a learning task

61. Controlling all facets of the learning task

C

•

A

•

•

•

B

•

•

M

•

•

F •

•

Table 6.6: User Control - Hinders Learning by Groups

When considered by experience and group, particular patterns emerge. The distribution

for Example 20 - Taking notes during the instruction sequence illustrated in Figure 6.10

shows a difference between the male (n=39) and female (n=29) participants. As detailed

in the left-hand diagram, females allocated this form of interactivity to Hindering

Learning whereas males did not.

_ ' o o. a _ CO _

z

1 o _ -J

_ (0 •o

c if

•

-1

Program —

0

-CONTROL

1

User

O Male • Trend-Male O Female • Trend-Female

_ o Q. Q.

_ CO

i z z a. < _ i

_ 0)

c I -1 -1

Program -

0 1

-CONTROL User

o Group A • Trend-A o Group B • Trend-B

Figure 6.10: Allocation for Example 20 by Gender and Experience

W h e n compared with the distribution by experience (the right hand distribution), a

possible explanation for this response is revealed. The less experienced participants

from Group B allocated Example 20 as potentially hindering learning, as there were

more females in Group B this may imply that the less experienced female participants

were less inclined to take notes during CEL activities. While only indicative, it would

6-181

reinforce the argument that gender differences might play a role in the success of

interactive C E L applications.

User Control - Possibly Hinders Learning

One of the outcomes of the allocation of interactive examples was that selected

examples were allocated in such a way that, while tending towards the Supports

Learning quadrant, were allocated by enough participants as Hindering learning that

further analysis was warranted. Table 6.7 provides details of those groups w h o

suggested certain examples might hinder the learning process.

Example

1. Choosing to move forward through a sequence of displays

3. Choosing to move backward to a previous display

4. Choosing to move backward through a sequence of displays

6. Choosing to jump to a previous display

8. Using a scroll-bar to control the display of text information

12. Moving graphical objects on a display

17. Choosing help or assistance to answer a question

19. Posing a question about the content

20. Taking notes during the instructional sequence

40. Choosing my own level of participation

41. Evaluating my own progress in a set of learning tasks

46. Determining the sequence in which the learning tasks are completed

49. Planning my own learning

57. Selecting the media elements used to display a single learning concept

58. Selecting the amount of content for a learning task

59. Choosing when to progress to another level of complexity

60. Selecting the context in which learning tasks are presented

62. Choosing from multiple representations of content

C

•

•

•

• • •

•

•

A •

•

•

•

•

•

•

B

• •

• • •

•

•

•

Wl

•

•

• • •

• •

F

• • •

• •

• •

• • • •

Table 6.7: User Control Examples Allocated as Potentially Hindering Learning

To illustrate this, Example 8 - Using a scroll bar to control the display of text

information was rated inconsistently between groups, which is particularly interesting

given the amount of scrolling information found on internet pages. This suggests that

learners want visible access to all information, and furthermore provides a context for

assessing under what conditions scrolling text is considered beneficial to the learning

process. A n extended research activity might be to focus specifically on each statement

and interview users as to their perception of the statement and the reasons they would

choose to assign it to a Supporting or Hindering quadrant, and under what conditions.

6-182

Example 12 - Moving graphical objects on a display was rated by 2 9 % of Group B as

Hindering Learning. The level of inexperience and lack of confidence in manipulating

the learning environment m a y attribute to this result. W h y Example 17 - Choosing help

or assistance to answer a question was considered to potentially hinder the learning

process is unclear, although perhaps reflects prior experience with uninformative help

sequences. While the distribution shown in Figure 6.11 indicates this was only a trend,

it can be related to the themes extracted from the interactive expectations discussed in

Chapter 2, which did not explicitly identify access to a help system in the responses

provided. What is interesting is h o w this allocation differs from the preceding statement

"Choosing help or assistance to explain the content" (Example 16, Table 6.5), which

was consistently rated as supporting learning.

_ o Q. CL

_ CO _

z z

_ •o

C

I -1

Program CONTROL

CO

o Q.

a. _ CO

I z z •a c 1 -1

O O

-1

Program CONTROL

1

User

o Group A • Trend-A o Group B • Trend-B o Male • Trend-Male o Female • Trend-Female

Figure 6.11: Allocation for Example 17 by Experience and Gender

From another perspective, Example 17 was allocated to the Supports Learning quadrant

by Group A but towards the Hindering Learning quadrant by Group B, as illustrated in

the left-hand distribution in Figure 6.11. This m a y have been a result of the greater

experience with educational technology for Group A. However, it does suggest that the

role of help systems in interactive applications is open to various interpretations and

acceptance by different individuals. This tendency was evident only with Group B

participants and, given that many of this group were recent school leavers, might reflect

6-

their prior educational and classroom environment, and possibly a reluctance to manage

the learning process.

In conjunction, these two sets of responses highlight and support the general finding

that Learner Control is best appreciated by the experienced user. For the interactive

developer, the strategies to enable a user to move from inexperienced to experienced is

clearly a design issue. Overall, both experience and gender groups were split on whether

this element of the interactive process would support or hinder learning. This suggests a

lack of confidence in some learners in assessing their own learning and again highlights

the problem with implementing specific instructional strategies that will address the

needs of a wide range of learner characteristics.

Program Control - Hindering Learning

Of the examples linked to program control, three were consistently allocated to quadrant

4 (PC/HL) and one was allocated by Group A only, as detailed in Table 6.8. As Group

A represented participants with a higher level of experience, this allocation is likely to

result from a notion that too much interactivity is not welcomed by the novice user of

C E L applications.

Example

23. Frequently required to answer computer-generated questions

25. Not being able to respond to material being presented

52. Receiving content in pre-determined "chunks"

53. Providing new learners with frequent interactions

C

•

•

•

A

•

•

•

•

B

•

•

•

M

•

•

•

F

•

•

•

Table 6.8: Program Control Examples Allocated to Hindering Learning

The fact that participants demanded the ability to be able to respond (by rejecting

Example 25) has significant ramifications for the development of on-line materials as

there is the indication here that a lack of interactivity will denigrate the learning process.

Figure 6.12 illustrates the distribution of responses for Example 23. This suggests that

even when the computer is perceived as being in control, it may not necessarily be

conducive to learning. The perceived notion of control appears therefore to be a critical

element in an application, as statements in the study which refer to other aspects of the

questioning process were recognised as being program-control but supporting learning.

It m a y also be that the structure of the statement itself biased the response; had the

words 'computer-generated' been removed it may have made a difference in the way

the example was allocated.

_

a Q. 3 CO

_ z z

1 _ (V

c I

<P

-1 0 1

Program CONTROL User

0 Male • Trend-Male o Female • Trend-Female

_ o Q.

a. CO

z < UJ

_ _ c

Q>

©

-1

•

-1 0 1

Program CONTROL User

O Group A • Trend-A o Group B • Trend-B

Figure 6.12: Allocation for Example 23 by Gender and Experience

In addition, the distributions shown in Figure 6.12 also illustrate the variation in

responses - while the tendency was towards Program Control and Hindering Learning,

a number of respondents perceived the example differently. B y examining the

differences based on the characteristics of the participants, a picture of complexity

arises. In principle interactivity supports learning, but to what extent will this

interactivity support the individual learner and generate consistent educational benefits?

This demonstrates a recurring theme whereby the user is reacting to the notion of the

program doing the controlling. While participants appear to favour having access to

information that is well designed and constructed, the notion that the system

predetermines this information size is rejected. It might also be the case that the concept

of "pre-determined" is considered an aspect of control over which the user will have no

control throughout the lesson, and therefore requires the necessary control to monitor

and negotiate that pre-determination.

6-185

Program Control - Possibly Hindering Learning

Only one example of interactivity was allocated to this category, as represented in Table

6.9. The distributions for this example, which were rated as Hindering Learning by

between 3 3 % and 5 0 % of participants, are represented in Figure 6.13.

Example

48. Having the learning sequence dependent on my mastery of content

C •

A B •

M F •

Table 6.9: Program Control Example Potentially Hindering Learning

_ o Q. Q. _ CO

6 z z

SE in _ c

-1 -1 0 1

Program CONTROL User

<> Group A • Trend-A o Group B • Trend-B

(0

_ o Q. Q.

_ CO

< UJ

c

-1 -1 0 1

Program CONTROL User

C Male • Trend-Male o Female • Trend-Female

Figure 6.13: Allocation for Example 48 by Experience and Gender

From these distributions, the less experienced and female participants were divided on

the extent to which the adaptation of sequence dependent on mastery would support

learning. Given the distribution, the main outcome from these observations is that more

focus needs to be placed on the implications of the interactive constructs devised in

terms of their effect on the target population. More importantly is the extent to which

the program initiates a conversation with the learner to gain some understanding of the

impact of the proposed interactions and whether the learner might wish to modify then-

operation in any manner.

6-186

CONCLUSION

This chapter reported on a procedure that asked participants to indicate whether

examples of interactivity supported or hindered the learning process. W h e n these

allocations were considered in terms of the total group of participants, interactivity was

generally assessed as supporting learning. However, when considered by experience or

group, or in terms of the distribution of allocations to a single example, a more complex

picture emerged. What the data revealed was a marked differentiation in allocation over

a range of the examples, reinforcing the observation that the individual learner's

characteristics m a y be the essential component in achieving successful interactive

encounters.

These observations also leave more questions than answers, and emphasise the role that

individual preferences and differences, such as experience or gender, play in the

adoption of interactive practices. If the interactive constructs commonly integrated into

C E L products are not achieving consistently desired results, as argued in Chapters 1,2

and 3, h o w can designers cater for the wide range of characteristics that individuals

bring to an interactive learning environment?

Perhaps the most significant outcome from this analysis is that the participants believed

interactivity may, in some circumstances, hinder the learning process. A possible reason

for this is through the combination of application design, content, learner characteristics

and motivation that impact working with an interactive product. For example, if a

design team wished to use a set of reflective strategies (Sims, 1997a) whereby users can

assess their o w n learning, based on the allocation of examples presented, it will also be

necessary to confirm a learner's confidence in using this approach prior to commencing

the task. If a low level of confidence is noted, then the application has to implement a

series of strategies to develop that confidence.

The following chapter extends this analysis of interactivity to that of practice, and the

extent to which interactions built into products support the expectations of

communication, control, engagement and subsequent learning.

CHAPTER 7:

WORKING WITH INTERACTIVITY

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 5 presented the responses to three questions that asked participants to indicate

their expectations of interactivity in the context of computer-enhanced learning (CEL),

and Chapter 6 reported the extent to which participants associated a range of interactive

exemplars with support of the learning process. In combination, the findings from these

two procedures presented a scenario in which participants demonstrated consistent

expectations of interactivity and its effectiveness on learning. In addition, the possibility

of variation between participants based on either experience or gender suggested

additional variables by which interactivity might be investigated. To extend this

analysis of interactivity, this chapter describes the methodology, results and discussion

associated with the third research question:

H o w do elements of interactivity affect product useability and

effectiveness?

The focus of this discussion is the way in which participants respond to the interactivity

embedded within products designed to support the learning and information

dissemination process. B y examining the ways in which participants actually use

interactive products, a comparison between expectations (identified in Chapters 5 and 6)

and implementation can be presented. The gaps or discrepancies that emerge in this

comparison provide a context to consider the ways in which design strategies might be

enhanced to resolve these differences, and maximise the useability of the product, as

discussed in the final chapter of this study.

To provide a means to examine the use of interactivity by participants, seven different

C D - R O M titles were selected based on their range of design, interface and interactive

elements. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the titles and asked to work

through the title, speaking out loud their interpretations of, and responses to, the

interactivity being presented. All participants were videotaped during this process and

7-188

each video sequence was analysed to generate the following three sets of data for each

of the titles considered:

• the major sections and/or content areas accessed, and the duration of that access,

• the types of interaction undertaken by the participant during that access, and

• a transcript of the session, including observer comments.

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 participants' interactive

experienced working with that title. The transcripts were assessed in terms of the

responses made by participants to the interaction presented by the various titles, and

comprehensive results are presented for each of the seven titles. The trends in the data

produced indicate that participants spent more time exploring a title compared to

engaging with, and manipulating, its content, reinforcing the need for the application

software to engage the learner in a two-communicative process. W h e n considered in

terms of the transcribed comments, it became apparent that while participants were

quite competent in using the physical interactions provided, there was little overt

evidence of their being consistently involved in the form of communication necessary to

maintain effective engagement.

PARTICIPANTS

The 46 participants for this section of the study (10 from Group A and 36 from Group

B) were also enrolled in the Bachelor of Multimedia program. Again, participation was

voluntary and each was awarded a percentage of course marks. While all participants

from the first two sections of the study were given the opportunity to complete this

component, factors such as enrolment changes, work commitments and non-attendance

at allocated sessions reduced the numbers.

INSTRUMENTS

Participants were randomly allocated to one of seven commercial interactive C D - R O M

multimedia titles (Table 7.1), and none of the participants had worked with their

allocated title previously. This provided an environment in which participants would be

7-189

encountering the presentation and interactive formats for the first time. Given the

smaller numbers in Group A, only the three titles associated with Australian History

were used. The seven titles were selected to provide participants with as wide a range of

interactions as possible in terms of the taxonomies of Schwier & Misanchuk (1993),

Sims (1997a) and Aldrich et al (1998) (as detailed in Table 3.2, page 3-86). The names

of each title and the number of participants from each group who worked with that title

are presented in Table 7.1.

Title and Topic Area

Australian History

1. Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat

2. Diggers, Dispossessed and Democrats

3. Frontier

Philatelic

4. The Wonderful World of Australian Stamps

5. New Zealand Stamps: Virtual Album

Contemporary Music

6. Real Wild Child

7. Voodoo Lounge

A

4

3

3

B

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

Table 7.1: Titles and Participants

The titles were selected from a library of over 100 such products used to support the

Bachelor of Multimedia teaching program. The selection represents a set of

contemporary titles (1995-1998) incorporating a range of multimedia elements and a

wide variety of interface concepts and metaphors including virtual environments and

traditional menu structures. The applications were also created using a diversity of

production teams and development software. This variety in format and content was

chosen to ensure participants would be working with a diverse range of interactive

experiences. The specific structure, interface and interactive characteristics of each of

the titles used is presented in detail in the following seven sections.

Using the different structures within each title also enabled the interactivity of

participants to be assessed over a range of environments and content. The structure of

the study also allowed for comparisons to be made between participants working with

the same title and participants working with different titles. The number of participants

working with each product was small (ranging between 5 and 8) and explicit

comparisons based on experience or gender were not a major focus of the analysis.

7-190

However, in the analysis of the transcribed comments, instances were identified where

such differences became manifest, and these are discussed in the context of the title.

The titles were installed on a Macintosh G3 with a 17" monitor set to display thousands

of colours, and participants were asked to start the application by selecting the

appropriate icon or alias on the desktop. The case for each title, with any accompanying

documentation, was placed next to the keyboard.

In analysing the observations made by participants during the videotaping, a wide range

of comments was offered relating to various design, interface and interactive elements

of the titles. The presentation of these comments is not meant as a reflection on the

effectiveness of the learning potential of these titles, but as a representation and analysis

of the way in which participants interpreted their interactive constructs.

PROCESS

Observation of people working in the environment being investigated is characteristic of

the qualitative research paradigm as well as ethnographic studies, although the latter is

typically associated with social groups and communities. To further investigate h o w

people approach and interpret interactive products, the observation technique was

employed to record the way in which participants worked with an application and

developed a better understanding of its operation. To achieve this, each participant was

requested to work through the interface and content presented and to complete four

specific activities under observed participation conditions:

• to reflect on their interpretation of the function and outcome of the interactive

constructs presented,

• to activate these constructs, work through the title and articulate the consistency

of outcome with their initial interpretations,

• to complete a short search task to provide a focused activity for their

interactions, and

• to reflect on the overall interactive experience with the title.

7-

To support this sequence of activities, each participant was provided with a set of

instructions (see Appendix D.l) which were identical except for specification of the

search task, which was particular to the title being used.

Throughout the exercise, each participant was videotaped using similar protocols to

those proposed by Harmon (1992) and Hart (1996) and where necessary, prompted to

verbalise their interpretations and reflections of the interactive experience. Each

participant's interactions were recorded and classified in terms of Exploratory,

Navigational, Presentational, Involving, Manipulation or Accidental activities, as

detailed in Table 7.2 on 7-194 following. In addition, the time taken by participants to

discuss and reflect on their experiences was also recorded to ensure all elements of the

interactive process were recorded. These strategies are consistent with those adopted by

the Australian Multimedia Testing Centre (2000), which is contracted by commercial

organisations to test the useability and functionality of multimedia products.

VIDEO TAPING

To ensure the observer had suitable views of both the interactivity with the application

and recording of participant observations, a pre-observational trial established a

preferred location for the camera, monitor and participant. This ensured that both the

monitor and the participant could be seen and heard to enable subsequent transcription

of commentary and interactivity. The system was set up as shown in Figure 7.1.

Observer

CD

Case Monitor

" • " ' ' mw

o Participant

Figure 7.1: Video and Observation Set-Up

7-192

ANALYSIS

O n completion of this exercise, each video sequence was reviewed and the following

items produced for each participant from the resultant data:

• an audit trail of the major content areas visited;

• an audit trail of the interactivity; and

• a transcript of the spoken observations.

To record this information as accurately as possible, each video session was reviewed

on four occasions. The first viewing was designed to gain an overview of the way each

participant worked with the title and to observe the content areas and types of

interactions being undertaken. The second viewing focused on recording the time at

which each content area was being accessed and in what manner. The third session

undertook the transcription of the words spoken during the activity and the fourth

session to confirm the records of transcripts, content areas and interaction types.

Observations on the ways in which participants worked with the title and the

implications of their spoken comments were also recorded and included in the

transcripts to enable comparisons with other data collected.

Audit Trails

The term audit trail, in the context of this study, refers to a record of a user's path

through a C E L application. Misanchuk & Schwier (1992:360) presented an analysis of

the ways in which audit trails can be used to represent these applications:

To date, w e have identified four distinct purposes to which audit trails can be put: as data-collection devices for formative evaluation of instructional design; as tools for basic research into the instructional design of CBI and hypermedia; as a means of auditing usage of mediated presentations in a public forum; and as the basis for counselling or advising learners as they progress through multimediated or hypermediated instruction or information.

This aspect of Misanchuk & Schwier (1993) was also considered by Andris & Stueber

(1994) who used a record of user-paths through a C E L application to develop what they

termed a digraph of the path, as illustrated in Figure 7.2.

Olivine

Pyru*vne

Amphibole Biotite Muscovite Quart?

Orthoclafo

Plogiool-asc

Clay Miner Ualcite

Halite Gypsum

Figure 7.2: Digraph (Andris & Stueber, 1994)

In this case, the arrows show a directional component of the encounter between user and

application, moving from one content section to another, either in a sequential path or

by jumping from one section to another. This method for reviewing user access to

materials was also employed by Fritze (1994) and Fritze & McNaught (1996) in

assessing h o w such data could be used to enhance the evaluation of C E L applications.

The analysis of interactivity in terms of useability focuses on the design and

development issues associated with this form of application, which is consistent with

the second aspect of Misanchuk & Schwier's (1994) audit trail analysis. However, the

digraph technique adopted by Andris & Stueber (1994) represents only the navigational

and location aspects of the contact whereas with this study the different forms of

interaction were also critical. To address this difference the representation employed by

Fritze (1994) was used as a basis to create an audit trail of the user's interactions with

the product. The following discussion details the process necessary to calculate and

present these trails.

Interactions

As has been identified throughout this study, the type of interactivity undertaken with

C E L applications can range from the overt action of selecting a menu item to internal

cognitive processing and engagement with the content material. To record the diversity

of interactions undertaken by participants, and to take into account the many different

ways in which certain tasks could be performed, the conditions of interactivity

*

%

H

I

7-194

presented in Chapter 3 were restructured to reflect the intent of the interaction, as

detailed in Table 7.2.

Interactivity

Exploratory

Navigational

Presentational

Involved

Manipulative

Reflective

Accidental

om$mm Where the participant is exploring the "information landscape" for details of application structure and operation. Where the participant chooses to move from one location to another or selects a menu option Where the participant is watching the dynamic presentation of material Where the participant is purposefully involved in following a set of actions to achieve a goal or assessing the static content being displayed Where the participant is actively manipulating content objects to achieve a goal Where the participant is discussing aspects of their overall experience with the observer Where the participant initiates an interaction for which there is no program response

Code

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Table 7.2: Interaction Types

Recognising that to record all the various forms of interactivity would complicate the

reporting of data, these seven categories were designed to reflect the interactions

available to, and being acted on, by users. A s an example of the rationale for this

classification, the following compares similar interactions from two of the titles.

The navigation provided in Voodoo Lounge was based on moving the pointer to the

right or left of the display, and the presented image would adjust automatically. In

comparison, navigating from one location to another using the Frontier title required the

user to select an arrow button. Similar variations were also evident in the other titles

used by participants. While the physical action required to navigate was different

(pointer position compared to button-click), the intent was identical - to navigate to

another section of the application. In this case, the Navigational construct of

interactivity shown in Table 7.2 was used to record the interactions.

Interactivity, Time and Content

To record these interactions, the video segments were viewed and each action

undertaken by the participants during the activity was coded in terms of content area,

time and interaction type. The following example shows the generic format and a

7-195

sample of the coding, and Appendix D.2 illustrates a complete set of audit data for one

participant.

Content Area, Time Started, Time Finished, Interaction Type

Menu, 1:56, 2:30, 3

In the generic example shown, content Area refers to the topic or topic area being

investigated by the participant. Time started and Time Finished refer to the time

(in minutes and seconds) from the start of the session during which the participant was

working with that content area, interaction Type defines the code for the interaction

being employed, as detailed in Table 7.2. The content areas were chosen to represent the

major sections that a participant could access, which involved a process of examining

the topics, sub-topics and sub-sub-topics for each title and determining the major

content sections. The recording of the interactions was based on a combination of

observation of the video and the spoken articulations of participants. As the titles used

were commercial productions, it was not possible to implement automated data

collection to produce the audit trails.

Each video sequence was scrutinised in terms of what the participant was doing

(watching content being presented, reading the screen, exploring the application,

navigating to different locations, scrolling through text, rolling-over objects) as well as

what they were articulating and the interactivity observed recorded. The graphical

representation of the audit trail was set to display over 600 pixels horizontally, each

pixel representing three seconds of interactivity (a total of 1800 seconds or 30 minutes).

During this observation of the video sequences, each interactivity type was noted and

transferred to the respective data file for that participant.

SOFTWARE ANALYSIS

Audit Trails: Content

To process and represent the content and interaction data, I developed a software

application specifically for this study using Macromedia Authorware® Attain™. A

selection of screen-captures of the design if this application may be found in Appendix

D.3. Apart from being able to represent the data statically for reporting in this

documentation, the program was structured to allow the progress of participants to be

7-196

displayed dynamically. Using the audit data illustrated in Appendix D.2, the execution

of this program created three separate graphical representations of the participant's

progress through the application. The first of these related to the content accessed by the

participant, as illustrated below.

Introduction Main M e n u People

Names Orioins

Nationalities Timeline Events

Q M Games Gold Freedom

Resources Search Research Bibliography Print/Save

Controls Music, Sound Introduction Exit

Help

1

1 1

1 1

1 1 III

1 1 1

I I 1

: - — — •

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation HNavi9ation •Exploration Onvolvement ^Manipulation ^Accidental •Reflection

Figure 7.3: Sample Content/Interactivity Audit Trail

The audit trail depicted in Figure 7.3 shows both the content and types of interaction

being undertaken while accessing that content. The value in this form of representation

is that it shows the ways in which a participant progressed through the application in

terms of both content and interactivity. A s will be discussed in the following sections, in

most instances only a small portion of the content was accessed. While this was partly

due to the time available to the participant within the study, it also appeared to be a

function of the their interpretation of the breadth of the application. The white sections

represent periods in which the participant directed comments to the observer, and was

not directly interacting with the application.

One of the issues raised by Reeves (1993) was that studies of learner control had

examined comparatively short encounters between learner and computer, with the

observation that much longer contact was necessary to determine the extent to which

learning was taking place. In the context of this study, the time allocated to participants

- up to 30 minutes - was considered appropriate to ascertain the different forms of

7-197

interactive behaviour. Given the amount of data collected on content and interactivity

and the comments transcribed, this time-period was appropriate.

Audit Trails: Interactive Profiles

O n execution, the application also created for each participant a data file (see Appendix

D.4) that was used to generate two profiles of the interactivity recorded during their

encounter with the title. This data file consists of a single record for each interaction

made, with the record containing the time spent using each interaction type, expressed

as a percentage of the total session time. The sample shown in Table 7.3 represents the

first, an intermediate and the last record for one of the participants.

Presentation

100.000

11.087

17.528

Navigation

0.000

3.838

4.120

Exploration

0.000

54.584

31.610

involvement

0.000

18.550

22.921

Manipulation

0.000

5.330

1.873

Accidental

0.000

4.478

1.573

Reflection

0.000

2.132

20.375

Table 7.3: Sample Data for Interactive Profiles

In this case, the first interaction was a presentation by the system and represented 1 0 0 %

of the interactivity. After a period of time the participant had attempted each of the

possible interactions, as shown in the second set of data. O n completion of the session,

the two major interactions undertaken were Exploration (31.610%) and Involvement

(22.921%). This set of data was also represented graphically as detailed in Figure 7.4 on

the following page.

In this example, which is representative of many of the interactive profiles, 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 associated with the Content Audit Trail (Figure 7.3) where

the first interaction associated with the user being involved with the content occurs at

approximately the 4th minute of the overall encounter.

7-198

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Interactions

Presentation — — Navigation Exploration

• Manipulation —Accidental Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.4: Interactivity Profile - Percentage Over Time

The profile depicted through plotting the percentage of interaction type over time

provides a visual representation of an individual's path through an application. In this

instance the participant was able to begin task-based activities relatively early in the

encounter and made few lengthy observations over this period, except in the final

session.

100,

90

80-

70,

§> 60 _ § 50 £ 40-a.

30 20-10-0-

y\ y A— i L __•_

s~ y\

' - ^

— ^ Interaction

/ 7

^ /

D Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

D Reflection

Figure 7.5: Cumulative Percentage by Interaction Type

7-199

A second representation of this data provides an overall view of the interactions by

plotting the final record in the profile data. For example, Figure 7.5 shows the last

record for the sample data shown in Table 7.3 and provided in full in Appendix D.4.

Transcripts

The transcripts of the participant's spoken comments as they worked with the title were

recorded, including the prompts or comments made by the observer. Each transcript was

verified for consistency, stored electronically and held by the author. Appendix D.5

illustrates a sample of one of these transcripts.

Analysis of the transcripts was based on the expectations of interactivity discussed in

Chapter 5 and summarised in Figure 5.3, page 5-127. A s a result, the comments

included from the transcripts in the following discussion of the individual titles are

classified under one of the six major nodes or themes identified - Engagement,

Conversation, Control, Design, Individual and Learning.

SUMMARY

This introductory section has detailed the methodology employed to examine the way in

which the participants involved in this study went about working with interactive titles.

The following sections in this chapter provided a detailed analysis of the data collected

for each of the seven titles. In these sections, each title is described in terms of its

production, content and interactivity after which three separate elements of the data are

considered. First, selected examples of the audit trails (as illustrated in Figure 7.3) are

discussed in relation to the content accessed by participants. Second, the related

interactive profiles, as illustrated in Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5, are presented and

considered in terms of the type of interactivity employed by participants. Third, selected

components from the transcripts are identified to illustrate the different ways in which

participants reacted to their interactive experience.

The final conclusion to this chapter, presented after the seven sections identified above,

addresses the outcomes of the results in terms of interactivity, useability and the ways in

which learners might gain m a x i m u m benefit from working with interactive products.

TITLE 1: CONVICT FLEET TO DRAGON BOAT

About the Title

This product was produced under the Australian Federal Government's "Australia on

C D " project which provided funding for consortia to design and develop C D - R O M

applications for delivery in the educational market. According to the information

provided on the packaging, Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat:

takes a very personal and confronting look at Australia's immigration history and mumculturalism today ... from a wealth of information ... to an exploration of issues through the eyes of migrants themselves - the result is a collection of wide-ranging experiences and opinions, beautifully presented and easy to navigate (Ripple Media, 1998).

The packaging includes images from the application and details for installation on both

Apple and Windows operating systems.

Figure 7.6: From Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat

The opening screen, illustrated in Figure 7.6, follows an audio/video introduction and

provides users with a range of topics that can be accessed in any sequence from the key

words located at the bottom of the screen. Links are available from one section to

another and two adventure games provide animated 3 D characters involved in stories

revolving around convicts being transported to Australia and Chinese gold seekers.

Interactive Constructs

The application includes a range of options by which the user can initiate interactivity

and control the pace and sequence of the presentation. The following descriptions

(Table 7.4) identify the major interactive elements contained within the title.

interactivity

Roll-Over

Click-Drag

Video Controls

Hyperlink

Clickable-Objects

Description

Responds when user positions pointer over object on display User is able to drag an object from one display location to another User can stop, start and pause the presentation of digital video User can link to another location by clicking on a word User can click on a display object to activate specific responses

Example

Main Menu options Geographic areas on m a p Timeline Scroll Bar C a m e o presentations by emigrants to Australia Link from a person to their country of origin Forward and back arrows Objects within adventure game

Table 7.4: Interactive Options in Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat

Audit Trails

The following diagrams illustrate the paths taken through the content by three of the

eight participants during their encounter with Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat. Based on

these paths, a number of trends emerge.

Introduction Main M e n u People

Origins NstionaHHes

Timeline Events

Q M Game*

Gold Freedom

Resources Search Research Bibliography Print/Save

Controls Music, Sound Introduction Exit

Help

1

1

1 • i 1

1

1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation ^Navigation • Exploration •involvement •Manipulation • Accidental DReflection

Figure 7.7: Content Audit Trail for David

7-202

First, it is apparent that each participant uses a different strategy to work through the

application. For example, David worked methodically through each of the content areas

using the menu labels as they appeared on the screen, in sequence from left to right

(Figure 7.7), while others like Chris tended to focus on each content area briefly before

jumping to another area (Figure 7.8). In contrast, Mark P. tended to remain in a single

content area, jumping backwards and forwards to linked items, as shown by the

numerous Navigation interactions (Figure 7.9).

Introduction Main M e n u People

Names Origins

Nationalities Timeline

Events Q M Games

Gold Freedom

Resources Search Research Bibliography PrintSave

Controls Music, Sound Introduction Exit

Help

___. 1 1

| | |

1 1 1 II

1 1

II 1 I I

1 1 1 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation • Navigation •Exploration •involvement H Manipulation •Accidental • Reflection

Figure 7.8: Content Audit Trail for Chris

Second, while participants tended to spend the early part of their encounter in an

exploratory role (represented by the light blue segments), there were few attempts by

the program to initiate some form of communication with them. It was not until the

participants focused on the assigned search task (for this title to seek out one of the

difficulties facing Chinese gold-seekers on their arrival to Australia) that they began to

engage with the content. This is consistent with the individualised nature of C E L

technology and illustrates that such applications do provide the means to choose their

own path through the content. However, the communication is only that resulting from a

participant's action, not through a proactive move initiated by the program. It is this

element that has been suggested is missing from interactive communication, and may be

an appropriate focus for future design strategies.

7-203

Introduction Main M e n u People

Names Origins

Nationalities

JJ_

Timeline Events

Q*A^ Games

Gold Freedom

Resources Search J L Research Bibliography PrinUSave

Controls Music, Sound Introduction Exit

_£__ 10 IS

Minutes 20 25 30

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation ^Navigation •Exploration •involvement • Manipulation • Accidental •Reflection

Figure 7.9: Content Audit Trail for Mark P.

Third, in reviewing the audit trails of all participants, it was interesting to note that

particular interactive elements of the title were not used to enhance and simplify their

encounter. For example, accessing the People topic allowed the user to access one of

eight different screens, each with the faces of seven people; selecting one of these faces

generated a display such as that shown in the left hand part of Figure 7.10.

MBhel Al tintas

R_ma_an Al tin tas

Suranie Ahrts

Turkish

Turkish

Sri Lankan

Ted Anderson New Zealander

Chris Backhouse

Stove Bagaric

Ewse Bonuttn

Osvaldo Bonutto

Emmanuel fcrtncat

Carl*

English

Croatian

Italian

Italian

Maltese

Chilean

Cartas Cereceda-Rojas Chilean

W f B a m than

Steven Cheah

Nicholas Chin:op

Ks-Sing Chua

Scot Clifton- Smith

John Crvenkovic

Teresa Crvenkovk

Vera Ctvenkevk

Svettan* Emelianova

Boris reknstov

Hussein Rage

R u « e l Jack

Paulina JaneczeU

Flor-nra Jones

Maria Katsimedako*

Sovannalrand Kay

Chinese

Malaysian

Maltese

Chinese

Scottish

Croatian

Croatian

Croatian

Russian

Estonian

Lebanese

Chinese

Polish

Italian

Chilean

Greek

Cambodian

R-bbertKop

WeHlngton Lee

J»e Msftocha

R a m a n Marar

Renate Mayer

Elena Obermeier

Betty O'Connor

Stephen O'Connor

w H i a m Paterson

Wlliafn Pawa

Izabefle Ptcheta

Guenter Press

Elias Ralls

Predrag RancK

Irma Rudrinski

Hassan SaUeh

3on Sown»rjono

Wtlhelm Soens

Dutch

Chinese

Malaysian

Indian

German

Filipino

Irish

Irish

Scottish

Fijian

Polish

German

Greek

Serbian

Polish

Malaysian

Indonesian

German

Katertna StathopouJos Greek

Bhat-att Susaria

Tan None Vu

Mary Anne Tormal

judit Toth

MhanTran

F_rme Vaartijes

Tony Vu

A m y Vf attter

Por Heang Ta

Indian

Vietnamese

Hungarian

Hungarian

Vietnamese

Dutch

Vietnamese

Welsh

Cambodian

Figure 7.10: Interactive Option Not Accessed

However, none of the participants chose the names option (at the top of the screen) that

generated the list of names of all the people for w h o m information was available. W a s

7-204

this because they did not see that option or because they were simply exploring the title

in a research study? Based on the articulated comments of participants, it would appear

the former the more likely, that the menu option was not perceived. This reinforces

issues of design and interface into the construction of effective interactivity.

With respect to the potential for the application to offer proactive communication, in

this instance there was no strategy employed by the application to introduce the user to

the structure of the application and the means by which it could be accessed. For

example, there was no suggestion to the user that they might like to look through the list

of names; instead, it was left to them to discover this option or to have determined its

purpose from the help menu. With respect to this particular title, very few of the

participants used the Help options, and those w h o did were not able to demonstrate or

articulate having internalised the information. What appears to be happening is that

there is an assumption from the producers that users will access and interpret the

information provided. However, this was not demonstrated by participants using this

title and may have been partly the cause of the limited variation in interactivity

represented.

Interactivity Profiles

To complement these audit trails, which represent the sequence of content flow and the

form of interactivity being undertaken, the following pairs of data representations

(Figure 7.11 through to Figure 7.16) illustrate what I have termed the interactive

profiles for individual participants. These profiles include the percentage interactivity

over time (in terms of the number of interactions, from 1 to n) and the cumulative

percentage by interaction type. For this discussion, the profiles are presented for the

participants identified as David, Chris and Mark P.

A significant aspect of these profiles is the level of exploration carried out compared to

purposeful or manipulative interactivity (as defined by Aldrich et al., 1998). Although

exploration is considered an essential component of interactive applications and the

learning process, the applications appear to rely on the user's motivation to become

engaged, rather than developing motivation and interest within that user through a series

of interactive strategies. For example, by letting the user know of some unique piece of

information - h o w they might find it and w h y they might find it interesting.

7-205

100 T

90

80

O)

3 c 0)

o _ _ Q.

3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Interactions

Presentation

> Manipulation

• Navigation

•Accidental

• Exploration

Reflection

• Involvement

e o> ta

_ c e _ a a.

Figure 7.11: Interactivity Profile for David

/ 100n

90

80 J

70-

60-

50-

40

30

20 10

0-

___•___. s /

Inte raction

T ^~ t__J 2—^_-

^

/ //

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Figure 7.12: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for David

While this restriction might be eliminated by people working in groups, or by receiving

scaffolding support from a teacher, many products are designed to be used by

individuals in an independent learning environment. It is under these conditions that the

products do not appear to be playing their role in the communication process. While

they provide access to the information, they do not appear to be effectively

communicating h o w to best use that access, including the structure or model around

which the content is implemented.

7-206

The percentage time David spent interacting with the application is shown in Figure

7.12. While there was some interaction where the user became involved with the

content material, the exploration time was always higher, in percentage terms. Ideally,

the exploration should decrease and the involvement and manipulation activities take

priority. That this did not occur might be an indication of limitations in the way the

application was able to integrate the learner into the overall process.

100

90

3 c _

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57

Interactions

Presentation — — Navigation Exploration

• Manipulation Accidental Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.13: Interactivity Profile for Chris

In that part of the encounter where participants were asked to complete a search task, it

remains interesting that while users did focus on the task, there was no apparent attempt

to formulate a strategy to achieve the goal. This is illustrated in Figure 7.13, where

Chris' involvement began to increase after the 38th different interaction recorded. In

terms of these profiles, and the cumulative percentage shown in Figure 7.14, an

interesting question is h o w long should a user work with an application before the

exploration evolves into involvement with and manipulation of the content. It may be

that the profiles represented here are related to experiences with the internet and random

'web surfing' - random information seeking, rather than purposeful refinement.

7-207

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.14: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Chris

The following diagrams (Figure 7.15 and Figure 7.16) show the profiles for Mark P.

The involvement in this instance reflects Mark P.'s individual interest in one aspect of

the content and ability to move quickly between the various content areas. Whether

gender, experience or age were contributing factors in terms of the extent to which

people were able to navigate through the content is an area for further investigation.

100 -r

90 -

80 -

70 _ o> 60

2 g 50-u «5 40 Q.

30 -20 10 -o 1

f^^d ^ - v — v ^^ —~ w ^ - > ^

PV r^ ——-v

~~p~ r~—" ; ^

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 7

Interactions

Presentation Navigation Exploration Involvement

Manipulation Accidental Reflection _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — . •

I I

3 77 81

Figure 7.15: Interactive Profile for M a r k P.

7-208

Interaction

Figure 7.16: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Chris Mark P.

Interactive Experiences

The following discussion examines the articulated comments of participants in relation

to working with Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat and identifies the implications of those

comments in terms of the implementation of effective interactive constructs. The

comments are presented according to and in the same sequence as the six themes and

related sub-themes of interactivity identified in Chapter 5 (Figure 5.3 and page 5-127).

Where I felt additional information was required to explain the context of the

comments, the explanation looks like this - [in square brackets and italicised].

Communication (Understanding the Purpose)

One of the issues raised by the participants was the extent to which they were able to

interpret the function and purpose of the application. At times participants demonstrated

confusion over what was being presented and h o w they were supposed to deal with it.

For example, despite having spent some minutes in the Help section, Suzanne and

Andrew had problems with the Q & A (Question & Answer) topic, as did Chris:

[Suzanne] I don't quite get what they want in this one. I expected Q & A to be you giving information that you've learned rather than them giving you information. It's definitely not what I expected at all.

[Andrew] Don't really get this bit.

[Chris] The Q&A, I don't really understand what it is all about. It doesn't really tell me about what you're meant to do.... Still don't understand Q & A page. They really need to put something in there so you know exactly what it is.

7-209

In relation to this, the participants also indicated this particular content area as

representing the most confusion in terms of its title ( Q & A ) and its content (a series of

records of unnamed individuals with answers to predetermined questions). The

participants expected this to be either a test section with multiple-choice questions

(Suzanne), a series of questions and answers about the site (Robert) or facts about the

period covered by the application (Mark P.). O n the other hand, Martin felt the

information in the Q & A topic was consistent with his expectation of "questions

presented by the computer".

Robert demonstrated a second area of confusion in making a link from the 1793 section

of the Timeline to settlers from England, as shown in Figure 7.17 below.

[Robert] Let's have a look at the Timeline. Let's go back to where I thought the year was, 1790s. O K , certain areas are greyed out, so they're not active. O K 1793 - let's see what happens there. Chirpy sounds - don't like them ... Free settlers ... Are we talking about 1790? But we've got a motor vehicle or something here - the Sydney Harbour Bridge 1920. This confused m e because I... go back again ... went to somewhere in 1793 - why would I

be getting a car?

In this instance Robert selected the link shown in red on the left-hand screen and

received the screen shown on the right.

Figure 7.17: Interactive Confusion!

7-210

Control (Navigation)

The availability of user control featured significantly in the comments of participants,

and reinforces the findings from Chapter 6 where it was demonstrated that being

confronted with little or no control was not considered conducive to the learning

process. For example, in commenting on the availability of the B A C K button, David

suggests that:

[David] And it could be easy to get lost in there, but what I did like was the fact that as soon as you hit the B A C K it took you back to where you started the search from. So that if you did get lost you just go back and you'd go back to the beginning which is good. But you'd probably get very easily lost in the amount of text information, if you followed all the hyperlinks through you could end up w h o knows where.

From a different perspective, Martin indicated the way in which some of the control

features of an application are revealed and Mark P. made observations on the

navigational aspects of the title:

[Martin] From what I first saw I thought it would be on the whole shaded area, but it breaks it down into smaller categories. Here on this list - if you look at another one I'm sure it's the same - yes.

[Mark P.] But this is really good -1 like this. From this actual topic of Chinese you can go to early migration and work out how to actually come around. It looks like it's got a lot of information. O h I see it's like a web page. ... It's easy to get around to actually view the content. You can either drag that or you can go to specific sections that you might want to look at [referring to the scroll bar and links].

In Robert's case however, the control of the scroll-bar was problematic, but not for

Andrew or Ivy. From the recorded observations, Robert's comments came during the 6

minute of his encounter Andrew's at the 11th minute and Ivy's at the 2nd minute.

[Robert] We've got something happening. A bit of a tug of war to get some more content on the screen [trying to use the scroll button]. The old scroll bar looks a little . perhaps they could have given you a little bit of an idea about dragging and pushing.

[Andrew] I like the scrolling system, that's good, pretty easy, pretty straightforward.

[Ivy] Pressing the People button you've got pictures of people of screen with names, controls you can actually select any of the people so I'll select a person. Gives you details, an interview with him ... Pressing the down arrow button ... get more information that way. Then you've got a links page if you're interested in it. Then it takes you to other people and you can get further information from them that you might be interested in.

This generates the question as to how long the program, as a product of a design

activity, gives the user to develop a level of competency in program operation? W h y did

some participants interpret the operation of the scroll bar intuitively and others with

difficulty? H o w can w e consistently bridge this execution/evaluation gulf? In this

7-211

instance, Andrew and Robert were Group A participants in the third year of their

undergraduate studies - where did the confusion in control operation originate?

Control (Choices)

Throughout this exercise, participants were asked to quit or exit the application at the

end of their session. In other cases, they found themselves in a location from which

exiting was also problematic:

[Chris] One problem I did have it didn't seem to let m e out of there without going to this [Exit] screen.

In this instance, Chris mistook the Exit button for 'exit controls' rather than the

alternative button that was placed at the top of the screen. This highlights the need for

consistency in the way options are presented to users between programs, or extended

user testing on interpretation and perception of icons and controls.

Control (Learner)

O n the other hand, during the adventure game, the program took control at various

stages, preventing the user from progressing to the next stage - this generated a number

of negative observations:

[Martin] Not quite sure what you've got to do - seems to be running itself.

[Robert] I've got no, the arrow on the screen means nothing ... it's locked until you have done something. Presume it's the slow loading of the audio, but I would have thought I could advance myself through this without waiting for it to complete. Everything seems very very controlled. I'm not sure whether it's the Mac, or whether it's just the way the instructions are coming out. This is annoying me, this arrow sitting there that I can't click.

Design (Interface)

There was a single comment on an issue with the interface, made during the search task,

which may have resulted from prior familiarity with search engines available through

the internet:

[Martin] I'm just typing in "what was one of the major issues confronting Chinese gold seekers on their arrival to Australia". Hard to hold the whole sentence. Bit hard to read what you're typing when it gets past the line because its actually down here [points to whre text has disappeared out of text-entry box]. So I don't know if I delete . Search doesn't seem to be working too well on this topic,

7-212

Design (Multimedia)

4 of the 8 participants who worked through this title made comments about the

background sounds employed within the title. Some were distracted and tried to link the

sound to the content, whereas others were simply annoyed. Ivy commented on the

distraction on four different occasions.

[Suzanne] I find the background sounds annoying.

[David] G o into the first button, People - the response to the button is a bit strange, somebody singing.

[Robert] That sound's irritating. That really is, that little high pitched sound as you roll­over it... There's a sound - more of a convict sound than a Thai sound - that's not Thai singing!

[Ivy] Lovely noises in the background [sarcastic], people singing whatever it is. That's a terrible sound ... The singing in the background is really, really annoying ... I would be turning off the sound of the computer with that horrible singing in the background ... The thing I found worst about this was the music in the background. I find it highly annoying.

Why the negative reactions to this background sound? It is as if as we progress through

the history of educational media w e are provided with heuristic concepts such as 'gain

the learner's attention or 'one interaction every four screens'. Based on m y observations

of the participants' working with this title, it appeared that the background sound was

activated either in response to an interaction or to remind them that nothing was

happening - a form of prompting. What is an appropriate reminder however becomes

problematic, when in this case it seemed to be more distracting than useful. A possible

reason for this distraction is that the reminder was not part of the context - the interface

was essentially devoid of audio, apart from this interruption. Comparatively, the non­

stop audio and animation of Real Wild Child continually reminded participants of their

location, but in this case it was an integral component of the interface or metaphor.

Only one of the 8 participants mentioned the value of combined media elements in

terms of information presentation:

[Andrew] Good - the video is different to text.

Individual (Relevance)

This sub-theme relates to the situation where participants demonstrated a particular

interest in a topic or concept, but did not receive information appropriate to their

demonstrated needs. If this information was unavailable in a human-human encounter, it

7-213

might be manifested through an apology - "I'm sorry, but I don't have that much

detailed information". In Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat the system was either silent or

responded with technically correct information, although irrelevant to the users request.

[Ivy] Actually I was having a look at it since I'm a child of a migrant. I was reading the questions trying to remember when m y mother arrived and her age etc. I'd liked to have been able to find out more information. For starters it isn't even listed .,. so it doesn't cover the full range of migrants that come to Australia.

Here we have a good illustration of the problem when interests relevant to an individual

are not catered for by the title. A solution would be to provide the user with an option to

seek for specific information and links to external sources. This particular observation

highlights problems inherent with a bounded ( C D - R O M ) title. If there was an in-built

'angel' (or what is sometimes termed an intelligent agent) then at least the user could

feel that while the product was unable to help, it was at least aware of their needs. So it

may be that a sympathetic response to an individual request is more important than an

answer, and the user can be made to feel more confident that the system is addressing

their individual needs. This strategy might also counter the perceived need for

intelligent systems - rather than the system being programmed to operate intelligently,

the users belief that the system is intelligent may be equally effective.

In another instance, the participant wanted to see whether his family name (from an

immigrant heritage) was listed in the application. After typing his name "Mark P "

he received a response and commented:

[Mark P.] It's come up with people and then it's got Teresa someone. I've no idea why it's brought up m y name though, unless she possibly has a relative that has a name of mine. I still don't know why it came up with her name when I put m y name in. It's got 26 matches for 'Mark'. Although 'Mark' could mean anything, she could have a birth mark ... it's probably just doing a text search.

Here was a clear lack of understanding what the search facility was doing. The

participant, by entering his name "Mark P ", was interested to see whether any of

his relatives were included in the C D . What the search system located was an entry in

the resources with the word "marked". A technical match, but not a logical match!

Although Mark P. guessed that the system was doing a text search, he was not

completely satisfied with the outcome of his inquiry. These two comments highlight a

challenge for designers and developers of C E L - h o w to meet the needs of individual

requests such as these, and satisfy these requests if the information is not immediately

available? Potential solutions to such a challenge are addressed in Chapter 8.

7-214

Individual (Supportive)

The confusion identified previously can also be linked to the expectations and

perceptions that people have about the application they are working with. Where those

expectations are not met, the interactive experience can be denigrated.

[David] Choice of different people - it doesn't tell you who they are, not even by rolling over them even though when you roll over them they light up. You've got to actually click on one of the people.

David's expectation in this instance was that there would be some information about

each of the people as he moved the pointer over their faces, to assist in deciding which

one to select. While Figure 7.10 clearly shows that the names of these people were

available, there was no specific obvious link between a screen item and the information

it contained. This theme also emerged for participants working with Real Wild Child,

where the objects displayed related to specific historical information. In this case,

support was provided through a short text explanation, which was not apparent unless

the Help materials had been accessed.

The support'required by individuals is also illustrated through the following comments

that demonstrate a mismatch between expected outcomes of interactive choices. I

believe this raises an issue of responsibility - if the user cannot interpret a particular

aspect of the program, does the responsibility to assist this development of meaning

reside with the program or the learner?

[Robert] This is what I would have expected to see, a cross section of the community -children, adults. A fairly heavy Chinese influence which would have been predominant of that era - this is identified on previous screens. More people. O K , we're bringing in children, we're not just dealing with adults ... a little bit confusing, because these people are actually in today's dress and I was expecting them to be in the period of colonisation.

This is in contrast to what the section is actually about - views of contemporary

immigrants, or children of immigrants. A similar discrepancy was revealed in Chris'

comments, where the expectation was for the People section to focus on the famous:

[Chris] From this [People] I'd expect famous people that have come over from England with convicts. ... As I expected, People is about the famous people in Australian history.

While one of the most important aspects of an encounter with an application is

understanding h o w to go about using the system, the support facilities may be available

but overwhelming, as illustrated by the following observations:

7-215

[Suzanne] The Help menu - its very full-on screen there, I'd prefer it to be more of a choice.

[Martin] There's a lot of information. Well it's a bit hard to get to the information you want to get to. The search didn't seem to help m e out too much.

[David] I'm not sure whether I liked the two, the split section on the controls up the top because it gave you two different things to look at. If you clicked on one it took you to a different area away from what you were looking at on the main end. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not, but you could either ignore it or you could get lost in it.

Here David found a problem with the way information was presented on the screen,

with menu selection available from both upper and lower sections of the display. In

general, the focus of his observations tended to be on the structural aspects of the title

rather than the content. While the individual can work through the application in their

preferred fashion, the interface itself may affect the success of their interaction with the

content and therefore the subsequent communication.

Impressions

As part of the process, participants were also asked to reflect on the overall interactive

experience. The following provide some of those impressions made with respect to

Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat:

[Robert] To m e the graphical interface took the whole presentation over. The interactivity, I felt as if I was being held back. I was only allowed to proceed at a certain pace. The arrow that was here - 1 should be able to press forward, I should be able to speed up the motion. Possibly because of the audio, a bit of an uncertainty. I felt all the way through that it was a controlled experience. Interactivity was not letting m e progress at m y pace.

[Chris] It was quite effective, it had a lot of information and it put it in different groups, so if you knew what you were looking for you could go straight to that area without worrying about looking through all the other information.

Based on the way Chris worked through the program and his final comments, he

seemed to interpret h o w the application worked, which was quite different to some of

the other participants, such as Robert. Perhaps more important are the individual

experiences people bring to the application, which influences their subsequent

interpretation and appreciation of the content. In this instance Robert was from the more

experienced Group A and Chris from Group B, although Chris was somewhat younger.

The issue of prior experience then becomes more complex as additional variables

potentially impact on the application of that experience. H o w do you cater therefore

with the different levels of experience or interpretation placed on the application by

different users? In this case the variations in experience identified in Chapters 5 and 6

7-216

may relate more to knowledge whereas this difference in response may result from prior

experience with different forms of interactive products.

Two additional comments provide further insights into the different responses that

individuals have to working with these types of product; one wanting more specialised

help and the other positive about the effectiveness of the game:

[[Martin] I thought the program's going to teach you something so they assume you don't know how to use it or anything to start off with. They could make it a bit easier to understand. The game was pretty hard to figure out. Basically just the lack of help, the only help that it gives you was for the screen, like what the buttons do and how to use the map.

[Andrew] It provided you with a lot of information of the background of immigrants coming into Australia. O n a whole range of topics, like transportation, it was explained well, I thought that was good. I think it was because it put you in the situation [referring to the game] they would have been in, like if I was Chinese I didn't know what they [the English] were saying, I thought I could do it on m y own and I couldn't. I didn't know what I was going to need or how far it was. So I think it engaged you lot, that was good.

Summary

This set of responses provided three major outcomes. First, as shown by the audit trails,

the content area covered was limited, even when the participant actually accessed each

of the menu selections. Second, based on the interactivity profiles, the participants spent

the majority of their time working with the product in exploratory activities. The

application took little responsibility to support the participants with interactions that

might provide involvement or the option to manipulate and experiment with content.

Third, the comments from these participants suggest a range of interactive aspects that

potentially interfere with the continuity of the interaction or create confusion in the

mind of the user. Supporting the user in understanding the purpose of the application

and catering for individual needs were two items that a more proactive application

might address in developing more effective communication between the learner (as

user) and the program (as the product of the designer).

7-217

TITLE 2: DISPOSSESSED, DIGGERS AND DEMOCRATS

About the Title

This application was designed to "introduce nineteenth century Australian history in an

interactive, user-friendly format" (University of Wollongong, 1997) to tertiary students

and is the product of an Australian tertiary institution.

The introductory screen (Figure 7.18) provides users with 17 different options, each of

which (apart from the Introduction) lead to a series of sub-sections that consist of a

series of screens presented in a linear sequence.

Figure 7.18: Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats

Interactive Constructs

The Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats application includes a range of interaction

types or constructs to enable users to navigate through and interact with the content.

These are summarised in Table 7.5 following

Interactivity

Clickable Objects

Drag and Drop

Text Entry

Hyperlink

Description

Responds when user clicks a screen object using the pointer

User is able to drag an object from one display location to another User is able to enter text of their own choosing User can link to another location by clicking on a word

Example

Main Menu options Reference information for images Forward and backward arrows Linking dates to gold-digging towns

Content search facility

Link from content display to text of original source

Table 7.5: Interactive Options in Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats

Audit Trails

The audit trails generated from the interactions of the 8 participants illustrated a number

of notable features, including the extent to which they covered only fragmented aspects

of the content. For example, Allan (Figure 7.19) viewed 7 of the 17 content areas, six of

which were accessed only briefly. In contrast, Richard (Figure 7.20) visited only the

Introduction, Gold and Help sections, spending considerable time determining the likely

content contained within the single topic of Gold. While acknowledging that this was

due to the nature of the research study, I was also conscious that, as with the trends

demonstrated by the other audit trails generated from this study, the program itself did

not undertake any proactive communication to direct the user to potentially interesting

sections. That was left to the user's sole discretion.

Main Menu Introduction VMiy Botany Bay Early N S W Macquarie & Bjgge^ The Convict System The Squatters Wakefield Aboriginal Australia Gold Eureka Rebellion Australian Economy. Constitutions Selection Education Migration & Ethnicity Great White Walls Errant Sons

Help Library Index Find

1 1 1 L III ILL

11 [

11 [

| |

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1

N T H I II

| 1 1 I |

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: • Presentation ^Navigation DExploration Dlnvolvement [ Manipulation j_ Accidental DReflection

Figure 7.19: Content Audit Trail for Allan

7-219

Main Menu Introduction Why Botany Bay Early N S W Macquarie & Bigge Tine Convict System The Squatters Wakefield Aboriginal Australia Gold Eureka RebeBlon Australian Economy Constitutions Selection Education Migration & Bhniclty Great White W _ s Errant Sons

Help Library Index Find

{ | f— -' •J [~ -J 1 11

1 II 1 I I I 1

1 II 1 I I I 1 1 1 II 1 1 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: • Presentation ^Navigation DExploration Onvolvement •Manipulation • Accidental DReflection

Figure 7.20: Content Audit Trail for Richard

In the third content audit trail illustrated (Figure 7.21), a quite different picture of a

participant's interaction emerges. In this instance Kate spent the majority of time in the

Help section, and based on her comments, was not aware that she was missing out on

the main content information available. Even when focused on completing the search

task (at approximately the 11th minute) she did not use the options to navigate to the

content, but chose the readily visible links to the Library. This identifies an additional

issue with interactive applications - h o w long should it take to "learn the interface?".

From m y observations, this was one of the major questions to emerge, as the

participants were not able to consistently demonstrate being "in control".

Main Menu Introduction Why Botany Bay Early N S W Macquarie & Bigge The Convict System The Squatters Wakefield Aboriginal Australia Gold Eureka RebeBlon

Constitutions Selection

Migration & Ethnicjty Great White Walls

Help Library Index

1 | |

_____

l i 4 • ' _____ I _ _ J — i — i * — - — j ;

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY' •Presentation ^Navigation •Exploration •Involvement • Manipulation • Accidental DReflection

Figure 7.21: Content Audit Trail for Kate

Interactivity Profiles

The interactive profiles for these three audit trails are illustrated in the following

graphical representations. The interactivity type most frequently recorded was that

associated with exploring the application and represented by the light blue.

—• (0

c « _ Q.

17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73 81 89 97 105 113

Interactions

Presentation

Manipulation

• Navigation

•Accidental

• Exploration

Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.22: Interactivity Profile for Allan

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.23: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Allan

The interesting trend with Allan's profile (Figure 7.22 and Figure 7.23) is the

convergence of the Exploration and Involvement interactivity. In Allan's case, this

7-

balance occurred at approximately the 110th interaction, after over 20 minutes of

working with the application. Perhaps a different measure of interactive effectiveness is

the time taken to reach such a balance.

25 29 33 37

Interactions

41 45 49 53 57 61

Presentation

Manipulation •

•Navigation

•Accidental

• Exploration

Reflectbn

• Involvement

Figure 7.24: Interactivity Profile for Richard

e a (0

c « if _ a

D Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.25: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Richard

In Richard's case (Figure 7.24 and Figure 7.25) this balance was achieved at

approximately the 27th interaction when he focused on linking dates of gold discovery to

locations in Victoria and N e w South Wales. His involvement with this activity ranged

7-222

from focus to frustration, but highlight the different ways in which an individual can

become focused on the interactive presentation of a product. In relation to this, Richard

had difficulty determining the purpose of the activity, as it was very structured and

sequenced. The issue was not with the instructional strategy, but that he had failed to

pick up the cues that this type of response would be required. Although this questioning

sequence was prefaced by a short statement indicating some questions would follow, it

was not internalised by Richard in this case.

This observation is consistent with experiences I have encountered while working with

students learning to use the Authorware™ application. In almost all of the dialog boxes

presented to developers, there are brief instructions on what to do. In most instances

however, users simply do not see this information. The assumption that users will read

and internalise each piece of information presented during and interactive sequence

cannot be made by the design team and additional strategies might be required to

confirm the user's understanding of the task required.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Interactions

Presentation ——- Navigation Exploration — — Involvement

— Manipulation — Accidental Reflection

Figure 7.26: Interactivity Profile for Kate

7-223

o ra 3 c o _ « Q.

Q Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.27: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Kate

The profiles for Kate (Figure 7.26 and Figure 7.27) are similar in many ways to those of

Richard, although the involvement in this case was with the Help system and also

completing the search task. However, Kate's total number of interactions (31 in 24

minutes compared to Richard's 60 in 24 minutes) resulted from her extended focus on

screen presentations rather than the more frequent navigation and links evidenced by

both Richard (Figure 7.20) and Allan (Figure 7.19).

Interactive Experiences

Analysis of the transcripts of participants working with this title also revealed a number

of themes that are relevant to understanding the ways in which people interact with C E L

environments. These also provide guidance as to how to maximise the effectiveness of a

learning experience in this context. The comments are presented using the themes and

sub-themes identified in Figure 5.3 on page 5-127.

Engagement (Participation)

As has been clearly indicated by the participants and the research literature, engagement

is recognised as one of the key precursors to learning. In Dispossessed, Diggers and

Democrats, a number of tasks were provided to users in the form of multiple-choice

questions and click and drag activities. However, the existence of these items is not the

key to successful engaging learning, as indicated by this response to the interactivity

presented by the application:

7-224

[Richard] I don't feel this was interactive at all really. Drag and Drop might have been an attempted interaction but it wasn't engaging m e and I was not feeling I was interacting with the information. Maybe a panoramic view of gold scapes where I could move different things around? That would have an affect and return things to me. This is a combination of page-turning and possibly complex search functions. ... The application is not interactive -it didn't engage m e at all.

Here Richard demonstrates the importance of feeling engaged, and its equivalence to

interaction. The desire for a more involving activity was indicated by a suggestion that a

virtual landscape may have provided a better means to focus on the content.

Communication (Conversation)

The variation between individual users becomes apparent when the responses relate to

the effectiveness of the communication. For example, the following illustrates a positive

interpretation:

[Peter] The buttons in this are very big and easy to read so ... it's pretty obvious what each one does. It's easy to use. Very clear. The text is all very clear and easy to read.

However, as demonstrated with the following comment, users experienced a degree of

difficulty with respect to receiving effective communication from the application:

[Allan] Selections [a main menu option] - ambiguous, that could mean anything. Basically I'd have to click around and find out where each of these lead to.

[Travis] It's letting me investigate further into what the 'Introduction' is going to show. It really hasn't told m e much about what's in the menu yet.

[Kate] I can use the navigation bar ... and go to the topic. I can follow the instructions by clicking on that button. I don't really understand what it's meant to be showing me. Click the arrows to continue. ... I didn't find it that easy to actually navigate around it even after going through the 'Help' section. I found it a little confusing.

This suggests the need for encounters that support the user, which is linked to a notion

of anticipation - either where the user expects something to happen and it does or where

the program anticipates (adapts successfully) to a user's needs. When this doesn't occur

it may generate frustration and cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) - have I done

something wrong? In the real world, how often do we have difficulty understanding

what to do? In what way do assumptions, where the designer assumes we know what to

do, or alternatively we assume what will work or what will happen, affect the outcome?

This notion links closely with Norman's (1986) Gulf of Execution and Gulf of

Evaluation, and is aptly illustrated when Sam chose one of the menu options:

[Sam] I have no idea about 'Selection'. I don't know what it really meant and I don't know what to expect. It's giving m e a nice little graphic of outback Australia with a billabong and

7-225

a few animals but.... 'Irrigation Lake, Wimmera, 1950, Arthur Boyd' ... That is just ridiculous! I don't know what's going on here. 'Irrigation Lake, Wimmera, 1950, reproduced with permission of Bundanoon Trust, Bundanong Trust'. Is that an Arthur Boyd painting? Is that what this is? Might be. That's just silly if you ask me. I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Even at the macro-level of menu options, the meanings of the icons or buttons has an

impact on the interpretation and presumably subsequent choices made by the user. If

such ambiguities existed in other research studies, what impact might they have had on

learner control or learning style outcomes? From a design perspective, how much

information should be provided to the user prior to them making choices? These

observations suggest that the messages conveyed by the opening screen would be

critical to any subsequent interactivity. In this title the content was explicitly "chunked",

but the meanings associated with these divisions were not immediately obvious to Sam,

as well as other participants. The issue of deriving meaning from menu topics was

constant with all seven titles examined in this study. Specific outputs from working with

Dispossessed, Diggers & Democrats are considered below.

Communication (Understand Purpose)

After selecting the Great White Walls option, which was assumed by Andi to be about

white society in Australia, the following comments were made:

[Andi] I'll have a look first at 'The Great White Walls' because I'd like to see what that is about. I just don't have a clue what it really is supposed to be about. N o w I come to a screen with a nice picture about, I guess, early settlement. Yes. Right here it says 'Travelling to Melbourne 1856', so it's still fairly early in the piece but again, it's a picture of the early white settlers in Australia, which is a type of Great White Wall. I can't see any interactive options really. There's a little red square which might be a button or might not but it still doesn't really tell m e any more than the button did before so I'll just try and move the mouse around and see whether I get a pointer somewhere.

Based on this it appears users expect to have information communicated to them on the

basis of their selection, and in this instance all that was presented was a single image

which did not convey to the user any additional information on the topic. While

progressing to the next screen did provide more details, it was the level of frustration

that was evident in Andi's comments, and this in turn could impact negatively on the

overall interactive experience. Sam experienced similar issues:

[Sam] 'Selection'? I don't know what 'selection' would mean. It's got m e baffled. Maybe it's selection of convicts to go to Australia. I don't know, it could mean anything. Selection of? I don't know. It doesn't really specify.

7-226

This inability to extrapolate the content 'behind' or 'contained within' each menu

option is an example of h o w the message designed to be conveyed by menu items may

not be interpreted as such by the user. While there maybe assumptions about the user's

prior knowledge and experience, these examples illustrate the extent to which user's

may be impeded or confused with respect to choice of appropriate topics.

From another perspective, user's expect to gain specific information from those topics

which have (to them at least) specific meanings, as shown in the following response to

selecting the Introduction to a topic:

[Travis] Further information is what the Introduction will show ... Really hasn't told m e about what's in the menu yet.

However, if the selection does not match the expectation, then the user is left trying to

determine where that information might reside.

Nevertheless, aspects of communication also have a positive impact:

[Pablo] Good. These [sub-topic buttons] light up to let you know where you are.

This demonstrates that simple techniques, such as colouring a menu button to indicate

the sub-topics completed, are important to the user. Providing almost sub-liminal cues

enables particular information to be communicated at all times. Interestingly, while the

status of sub-topics was displayed, there was no indication on the Main M e n u as to

which topics had been examined. As with all other titles examined in this study, no

communication by the program indicated which of the major topics had been previously

selected and/or completed. Given the reactions of participants, it would appear that this

form of communication is not a critical element of the design strategy, with the

assumption that the options provided would be self-evident. The structure and intent of

the content however is not always transparent, and requires adaptation by the program

in terms of informing the user of the structure of the content and the user's role in

accessing that content.

Control (Navigation)

Being able to navigate freely was also a priority:

[Andi] Can I go back from here to the 'Help' screen again? No. I can't go back from here. Maybe I can get back. No, I can't get out. I have to return to the lesson first.

7-227

[Peter] That's pretty easy to find [using desktop menu bar] if ever you get lost... if you don't know how to quit something. Shall I quit?

This latter comment was an interesting observation - once the Quit location had been

discovered it was seen as a useful option. However, in the way the application was

presented on the Macintosh, the Quit option was on a menu bar physically attached to

the desktop rather than the application, and some participants found this difficult to

locate. To what extent therefore should all the user options be embedded in the

application so that the options are integrated with the interface and metaphor?

Control (Choices)

A related issue is that of consistency across applications; for example, if it's clickable

the cursor should change to reflect this. In this example, Richard found that a Double-

Click produced a response and therefore assumed it was the correct response. In other

applications however a double-click takes the user through two menus (as discussed in

Title 5: Australian Stamps).

[Richard] So I was sitting there waiting for it to load. I heard the machine make a noise and so I was thinking, waiting for other things to pop up on the screen. I gave it some time, nothing happened - then I proceeded to press the only thing that appeared pressable, or clickable. ... There w e go, w e have a double-click thing happening. Here is the information I was expecting to happen. So now I know to do this, which is double-click on the image,

whereas before I didn't know.

Control (In Control)

Another issue recurring between titles considered in this study is the difference between

controlling and being in control.

[Peter] It's asking m e questions ... You can't go back though. Can I go back to the introduction? W a s I supposed to go there? ... Its very easy to get around, but still a bit funny with games and quizzes - how you can't really get around them, although you can

always find some way to get around them.

At this point, Peter had been presented with a quiz without any prior preparation, and he

was doing lots of random clicking - accepting of the responses being generated but with

no support, feedback or effort from the application to focus him on the content. As has

been observed previously, many titles appear to place all the effort on the user to gain

value from the interactive encounter, so what strategies might be adopted such that the

program adds value to that encounter? Similar observations are represented by the

following comments:

7-228

[Sam] I wanted to get back to the screen before this, where it was talking about a 'committee' and I went to this link here expecting something on Chinese and it's given m e quite a lengthy document about the restricted entry of Chinese into Australia. I went to press the 'source' button and I thought that would take m e back to the source of the whole block of information about the Chinese coming to Australia, but it didn't. It gave m e the source of this document here which wasn't what I was looking for.

[Travis] I have complete control. There's no time limit to how long I can study the image ... go back and forward if I like. And back to the menu if I'm sick and tired of looking at this.

This aspect of control is perceived in terms of self-pacing and selection. How do we

compare this to a book - are we in control of reading a text, are we in control when

watching a film? Even though Travis was able to state that he had control, it was a

temporary state:

[Travis] Can't go back for some reason. None of this is really specific so ... it's a pain that you can't go back to the sub-topics menu. You've got to go back to the original menu and go through it again.

Design (Interface)

How to resolve the consistency issue is problematic. In the Convict Fleet to Dragon

Boat title, Robert recognised that the information relating to People was presented

consistently, with an implication that alternative information elements may have been

useful. However, with respect to the Timeline option in the Dispossessed, Diggers &

Democrats title, its varying forms elicited the following comment from Andi:

[Andi] Timeline. Well let's have a look at it as to how many years it spans. I find that a bit disturbing. I expect a timeline and it just shows m e a picture. Clicking on the picture doesn't do anything. I have to actually go down to the arrow and continue there. And it's a different type of timeline too now. I don't know why that is. Consistency, I think that helps. But now I can see again the pointer changes to a hand so I expect all those are links which isn't otherwise easily visible. Oh! Here it says click on the dates for more information but it looks like you can click on the sentences as well.

In terms of the interactive encounter, Andi acknowledged the need for consistency,

where what happens on one display is anticipated to happen on the next. While Andi

was only browsing, he identified a range of issues with the interface that can effect the

ways in which material is interpreted and understood. Another of his observations

related to the extent to which material adds value to the experience:

[Andi] All it does is tell me where the picture is from and who painted it, and where it's being kept. Well, I can't say that was very informative.

7-229

W a s this a case of superfluous interactivity and content? In this case, the additional

information on the images could easily have been superimposed on the display without

the need to click. It also was time-controlled, disappearing after 10 seconds.

[Travis] Doesn't give m e any clues to where I should go next but I know from before you just click on the screen and it brings up this which is the same as in the Aboriginal one.

Here Travis is clearly anticipating what will happen, so there is an expectation of

continuity and consistency, much as w e expect people to behave in the same way. In

terms of the encounter, w e might think in terms of the convention. For example, in a

conversation a convention (explicit or implicit) may be to respond immediately to a

question; alternately, the convention might be for one person to respond only after a set

period of time. A s in different feedback protocols, it appears that the user needs to be

aware of the conventions - either by defining them or by being informed of them, or by

negotiating them. The extent to which these three aspects of convention are

implemented will of course be a function of the learning environment and community of

learners.

[Travis] I'll click this button to see if there's anything else and then it shows m e the rest of what I didn't see before ... which I feel should have been pointing down rather than to the side as before I was going across to a new screen whereas this is scrolling down and it's still got the arrow going to the side.

There are also expectations that applications should be consistent in terms of the way

controls are made available. This was also evident in Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat

where Robert took some time to determine the function of the scroll-buttons, initially

assuming they were ornamental. As with a number of the other titles used in this study,

participants had difficultly locating the exit button or function. Additionally, in some

instances the exit process included lengthy credit sequences while in others (such as

Dispossessed, Diggers & Democrats) it resulted in immediate termination.

The product used to create the application can also contribute to the effectiveness of

interactivity and communication:

[Kate] It's really hard to tell what each of the documents is about. They're sort of cut off.

This particular difficulty is a function of the operational characteristics of the authoring

system which allows the developer to set up a comparatively automated sequence by

which the user can enter a search term and the program will locate any text occurrence

of that term. However, when activated in this product, the results tended to be confused.

7-230

In this instance, the problem lay in the way the data was retrieved, as it presented the

whole sentence or paragraph found - and when displayed in the window there appeared

to be considerable overwriting. While the user was able to make a link to the actual text,

the overall presentation was interpreted as confusing by more than one participant,

resulting in some level of confusion and possible increased cognitive load (compare

Chandler & Sweller, 1991).

What aspects of the interactive experience interrupt or interfere with the narrative or

flow? What is the effect of a cognitive interruption? If the user is placed in a problem

solving situation, what role does the program need to play to provide the user with an

appropriate set of support tools. H o w much effort should be given to developing the

level of problem solving (agency) evidenced in applications such as Microsoft Word

(with the Office Assistant) or Lotus Word Pro?

Individual (Relevance)

W h y should the user be confused by the operation of a learning application? After

acknowledging uncertainty about some of the menu items, Allan selected Gold because

of an individual interest:

[Allan] Looking at a picture with no obvious direction to go anywhere from there. Not at all what I expected - one picture to cover the whole of gold-rush. N o idea how to get back to where I was. Hit the Esc key and have gone to more information on gold. Imagine Main Menu will take m e back. Yes. Pick a topic. Picture and text to explain. Library. Back to lesson. A lot of old pictures - not much else. I'd be interested to know how much gold came out of the goldfields, but its not telling m e that - yet. N o w I have a quiz - need to go back to look at pictures to get answers, but it won't let me.

Here Allan could not decide what to do, so he used a technique from another application

(pressing the Esc key), which was successful and repeated subsequently. H o w do you

cater for the user who may have some particular interest that is either embedded in the

application or not available? To facilitate these unknowns w e need an extension of the

Reflective level of interactivity (Sims, 1997a) to one of dynamic reflection and

collaboration, where other users are able to contribute to the material available in the

product. This of course implies a need to make the product perceived as one for

multiple-use, so that a return visit is seen as viable and likely to demonstrate different

materials. This also highlights the importance of a database of content materials that

could be modified by the designer based on user input, but independent of the user's

access to the system.

7-231

However, Allan was confused by the complexity of the presentation. Even so, he was

also put off by some of the assumptions made by the application, including the

presentation of a Help sequence on commencement, which may or may not have been

useful:

[Allan] This help screen comes up without you asking for help. You get it - are you new to this type of thing? That surprised m e getting it without asking for it. Matter of fact it's sort of like implying you're a bit dumb by giving you it without asking for it, you know.

[Kate] Didn't find that easy to navigate even after going through the Help section -1 found it a little confusing.

So selected users will react to certain assumptions being made by the program, again

supporting the notion that users do not respond well to unpredictable material being

presented by the application. H o w to predict the unpredictable, and prepare the user for

its display is perhaps one element of magic required by the developer!

Learning (Meaningful)

One of the expectations of interactivity (identified by participants in Chapter 5) is that it

should be meaningful to the learner. The following comment indicates how this

meaning can be compromised:

[Richard] I don't think its very instructional... because in the end I was just... due to this I'm aware that it is the town I'm looking for, but maybe they should have provided a map outlining these places prior to m e getting in so I would have had an idea of the location of the town ... because otherwise it was just like you saw, until I got the right one, which didn't require a lot of thought, just one after an other in a logical progression.

How can the program cater for encounters that are not anticipated by the user - if you

are not expecting something to come along, but which requires attention on current or

previous information, it may be scanned without being processing. Consequently, deep

processing of that material might not occur. This comment also suggests that interactive

encounters also require logic, in this case Richard had difficulty interpreting the

rationale for the exercise. This also highlights the link between the content and the

strategy - an interaction by itself is no use unless the tasks presented are relevant to the

knowledge required. In this case Richard could not see the overall value of the task,

Impressions

Representative of the overall impressions of Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats

were the following comments:

7-232

[Andi] Yes. Its fairly inconsistent and I found it very hard working with it. Different things to what I expect come up and even from the same type of interaction and the same type of button I get different responses. And the other thing is that if I'm looking for information I don't want to have to answer a quiz in order to get on. And I would really like an index or something like that so I could get to the topics by different headings, not by fairly nondescript menu.

[Peter] It's easy to use. The back and forth aspect is good and easy to use ... takes you to all the documents. Overall I guess there's a couple of little things. I guess the main thing about this whole program was the little quizzes ... I couldn't find it, there may have been a way round it but I couldn't find m y way round it.

Here is a case where the operation is perceived as being easy and obvious - the

forward/back buttons take you to predictable locations. But how does ease of use relate

to effective engagement?

[Sam] Once I got into it, it was pretty good. Fairly well set out and the information is short and concise which is good. I couldn't scroll backwards and forwards through pages as easily as I thought you'd be able to. With some of these icons down here, it wasn't like I expected.

[Pablo] I like the nice graphics and they are clear. There's not too much mess anywhere. Good pictures - big pictures are good.

[Travis] The overall effectiveness of my experience is that it's easy to work your way through it, but to find specific information is quite difficult. As in the menu here , once you get into Constitutions it leads you all the way through and you can't really branch off and look at other information. You've got to keep happening along and trying to find it. You can't go back.

If the 'narrative' goes down one path that the user does not want to follow, they would

like the opportunity to remove themselves from that thread and take up another. A

program limiting this option would appear to restrict the user and therefore achieving

maximum benefit from working with the application.

Summary

This section of the analysis has focused on three sets of data collected as a result of 8

participants working with the Dispossessed, Diggers & Democrats title. With respect to

the content audit trails, the variation between the individual paths taken was manifested

in the different content areas accessed. While it was not anticipated that individual

participants would access all of the content available, the image of the audit trail linked

with the transcripts gave an impression that they had not developed an accurate internal

representation of the overall structure. The potential impact of this on the overall

effectiveness of the interactions is evidenced through limited communication and

subsequent generation of meaning.

7-233

The second area examined was that of the interactive profile. Those generated for this

group of participants introduced the notion of interactive balance, where the user

achieves a state of equity in the different interactions being used. In the examples cited,

a balance between exploratory and involving interactivity was achieved, but over

different periods of time.

Finally, selected extracts from the transcribed comments of the participants were

assessed in terms of the different themes of interactivity. The issues emerging, such as

Communication, Control and Design, were consistent with those demonstrated in

Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat as well as the titles discussed in the following sections.

The impact of these observations was to reinforce the notion of the interactive

experience being a form of encounter between the learner and the designer.

Implementing C E L to take advantage of such encounters is a strategy considered

worthy of on-going investigation.

The following section addresses the responses made by participants to the Frontier title,

providing additional material to focus on learners working with interactivity.

7-234

TITLE 3: FRONTIER

About the Title

Frontier, developed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997) is a double C D -

R O M covering 'War' and 'Policy and Attitudes" in Australia's colonial history. The

first C D - R O M - 'War' was selected for this study. As illustrated in Figure 7.28, the

main menu provides the user with ten options as well as an information display and

contextual navigation options. While the Introduction provides an audio/visual

sequence, the remaining sections use a Table metaphor (see Figure 7.39) to allow the

user to explore various documents and information associated with the topic area.

Figure 7.28: Frontier

The navigation bar is placed on the bottom of the display and provides constant access

to different operations of the application. Interestingly, the word Frontier on this display

is also a hot spot, leading to an introduction to the application - but none of the

participants discovered this option. This introductory information provided an

orientation to the program and background to its structure - why participants did not

perceive it as an accessible option was not established in the course of the analysis.

7-235

Interactive Constructs

This title provided participants with a range of interactive constructs that were

consistent with the design and metaphor of the application but different from some of

those provided by other titles examined in this study. The major interactive types

employed by Frontier are detailed in Table 7.6:

Interactivity

Roll Over

Pop-Up

Click-Drag

Hyperlink

Clickable-Objects

Description

Graphical response when user positions the pointer over object on display List of options appears when a single screen location is selected User can stop, start and pause the presentation. User can link to another location by clicking on a word. User can click on a display object to activate specific responses

Example

A new graphic appears when the pointer is moved over each of the main menu options Main menu options appear when the navigation bar is clicked. Accessing different sections of a presentation using a sliding control. Jumping from a source reference to the source itself. Navigation from one screen to another.

Table 7.6: Interactive Options in Frontier

Audit Trails

As with the two titles discussed in the previous sections, the participants w h o worked

with Frontier also tended to access only limited areas of the material presented.

However, the difference between the interaction of Anna (Figure 7.29) and Kahli

(Figure 7.30) can be seen in the focus placed on the content material.

Introduction M a m Menu Frontier Introduction First Contact War Massacres Aboriginal Resistance Land Rights Settlers & Squatters The Army & Police Dissent & Remorse Settler Fear

Navigation Bar Ambient Interior Menu Frontier Menu Search Index Print Companion CD Timeline Exit

INTERACTIVITY:

|

i t - m i • i

i i i

M

... 1 11

- ' - -J 5 10 IS

Minutes

•Presentation |J Navigation •Exploration •Involvement

20 25

•Manipulation • Accidental

30

• Reflection

Figure 7.29: Content Audit Trail for Anna

7-236

Whereas Anna remained focused on specific content areas, Kahli tended to jump

backwards and forwards as indicated by the frequent navigation recorded. In contrast,

Nicholas remained focused on a few selected content areas (Figure 7.31).

Introduction Main M e n u Frontier Introduction First Contact War Massacres Aboriginal Resistance _______ Land Rights Settlers & Squatters The Army & Police Dissent & Remorse Settler Fear

Navigation Bar Ambient Interior Menu Frontier Menu Search Index Print Companion CD Timeline Exit

10 15 Minutes

20 25 30

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation M M ^ S a * 1 0 0 •Exploration •involvement •Manipulation __ Accidental •Reflection

Figure 7.30: Content Audit Trail for Khali

Introduction Main M e n u Frontier Introduction First Contact War Massacres Aboriginal Resistance

_Landraghte_ Settlers & Squatters The Army 8 Police Dissent 8 Remorse Settler Fear

Navigation Bar Ambient Interior Menu Frontier Menu Search Index Print Companion CD TimeBne Exit

10 19 Minutes

20 25 30

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation fjNavigation •Exploration •Involvement ^Manipulation MAccidental •Reflection

Figure 7.31: Content Audit Trail for Nicholas

As identified with Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat and Dispossessed, Diggers &

Democrats, the program did not evidence any integrated strategies to attract the

7-237

participants' attention. However, the video which accompanied the Introduction was

acknowledged as being extremely well presented and attracted the attention of those

participants w h o viewed the complete presentation. Given this focus, integrating voice-

overs with animated graphics might enhance the value of interactive titles for learning.

Interactive Profiles

A s with the profiles linked to participants working with the other titles, those illustrated

below represent the typical patterns exhibited by participants working with Frontier. In

Anna's case (Figure 7.32), the majority of interactivity involved exploration and

navigation, with the more explicit involvement commencing approximately at the 29th

interaction. In comparison with the profiles presented for Dispossessed, Diggers &

Democrats (for example, Figure 7.22), an interactive balance was not recorded by the

time Anna had completed the task. This is reflected in the percentage of interactive

types represented in Figure 7.33 following.

_ O)

n _ o

100

90

80

70

60

50

o> 40 0.

30 20

10 :E 0 I' i " 1 '

X

~

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43

Interactions

Presentation

Manipulation

• Navigation

•Accidental

• Exploration

Reflection

Involvement

Figure 7.32: Interactivity Profile for Anna

-O)

3 c tt _ d> Q.

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

D Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.33: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Anna

In comparison, the profiles for Kahli show a different pattern (Figure 7.34 and Figure

7.35). While Kahli spent in excess of 5 0 % of the interactions exploring, there was a

tendency for the balance to be linked with the Presentation (yellow line) rather than

Involvement. However, she also demonstrated a small amount of manipulation that

related to controlling the display of content.

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73

Interactions

R-esentation — — Navigation — — Exploration — — Involvement

Manipulation Accidental Reflection

Figure 7.34: Interactivity Profile for Kahli

7-239

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.35: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Kahli

The set of profiles for Nicholas (Figure 7.36 and Figure 7.37) show a different

interactive experience, where over the duration of the contact, approximately 5 0 % of

the interactions were exploratory and 2 0 % associated with audio-visual presentations.

Overall these observations reinforce the extent to which different individuals respond to

and interact with titles designed to support education and training.

_ 3 c -_ _ 0-

100

90

80 -

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

:::

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47

Interactions

Presentation Navigation Exploration

Manipulation ——Accidental Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.36: Interactivity Profile for Nicholas

7-240

y

1001

90-

80-

70-

§) 60 (0

| 50n u % 40-_,

30-20 10-0-

/

j / \

v /

/

/ X

/-

__ ,

:? ^a—

Interaction

I ^

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Figure 7.37: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Nicholas

The following analysis presents details of selected comments made by the participants

as they worked with Frontier. Again, these are structured to reflect the themes and sub-

themes identified by participants and structured according to Figure 5.3 on page 5-127.

Interactive Experiences

A s with Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat and Dispossessed, Diggers & Democrats, the

themes emerging from the comments articulated by participants during their interaction

with Frontier shed light on some of the issues which, it is argued, have been partly

responsible for the lack of success in C E L environments. The following identifies those

themes and discusses them in relation to the comments offered by the participants.

Engagement (Participation)

A repeated issue that I believe has emerged from the analysis of working with

interactivity is that the programs provide an environment for exploration and

engagement, but that it is the learner's responsibility to take advantage of this. The

following reiterates the potential for the program (through the strategies implemented

by the designer) to take a more proactive role in the interaction.

[Joel] A lot of it is interesting when you first come into the program, but after a while it becomes less interactive and just more straightforward so there isn't anything new. There's no ... it's just all information and there's no interaction like in games that they could put in there or just stuff to get people involved more. Like solving puzzles. So I'd think I'd make it a bit more interactive that way.

7-241

Engagement (Attention)

While the graphic design of an interface or metaphor can present well (see Figure 7.39

following), it may not be successful in communicating the intent of those objects, and

break the attention of the user through a form of interactive interference:

[Anna] I can see by rolling over one [object on table] that I'd be curious to roll over the rest of them and find out how they fit into the story ... like the window, the jug, and the cup here. Otherwise they would be perhaps faded into the background. Obviously books equals further reading. There are clear computer elements in that but the window doesn't fit in. It's throwing me. It broke a strong link there.

[Danny] Oh! Right! That wasn't intuitive. I didn't see that happen at all. My attention was up here [at the top of screen]. It relies a lot on exploration.

On the other hand, the interface can support the demands of users, where both Elizabeth

and Sushila link an effective presentation with attention and subsequent learning.

[Elizabeth] Well, it's holding my attention. Impressive with its graphics. The layout is easy to read.

[Sushila] The Introduction gave you something straight away, so it was more like drawing you into the program and making you listen straight away. Usually, when you use the internet, you click on a button and it goes to another screen or site connected or something like that and all it does, is sit there and does not encouraging you to continue. But with this, ... there's no time to even think. I have to listen otherwise I won't get what they're talking about and I might not be able to go any further. So it draws you in, in that aspect and I think that's a really, really, good selling point, because by drawing you in, it's instantly grabbing your attention and then when you get to the end, you've learned something.

Engagement (Interest)

The interest of a participant can be lost if the application does not live up to

expectations (Elizabeth) or there is too much information (Joel). The extent to which the

learner and program might negotiate a presentation strategy is one option to consider in

enhancing such encounters, as the comment by Elizabeth above was more positive.

[Elizabeth] I would like to have seen something depicted behind it when you actually have a journal... with actual writing. I guess that's a little bit more of what I expected to see, using natural things and items of that time. Well, that loses m y interest [in the document] and I don't even want to go into it because I would have preferred to see actual replicas of the documents.

[Joel] There's a lot of information if you're looking up an area but there's a lot of reading involved as well. It's interactive, but it gets a bit dull after a while.

This latter comment is also quite telling, as it highlights the very issue plaguing

interactivity - it is clearly identified within applications, but its impact on sustained

engagement and interest is not always successful.

7-242

Communication (Understand Purpose)

From the comments made, it is clear that users have certain expectations on the

performance and presentation of CEL titles.

[Elizabeth] Well. I expected another voice section there [on the table menu]. With the Introduction it has some narration and some audio giving you some idea of what that area was about. At first I expected that to come up again and to give m e an overall view of this area. I discovered that I need to point into particular areas to get information. ... I expected to see perhaps an image of an article. That doesn't look consistent with the layout of the whole thing. It looks very odd. That just seems a pity. I think m y first impression is that just doesn't look like it fits in with the image of the whole C D .

[Kahli] I was clicking on this [description of the letter] and I didn't understand that this would be the actual thing ... the actual letter. It is pretty obvious really.

So in some way there is a responsibility to prepare the user for what is to come, without

compromising surprise and interest. In this case, Kahli had to repeat the process through

trial and error before she admitted it was obvious. By referring to the illusionists

(Tognazzini, 1999), their technique is to explain the dangers of the task and then to

surprise and delight the audience with the outcome - sawing a person in half, making a

plane disappear or pulling a rabbit from a hat! All of these are techniques to engage and

entrance an audience - in what way might these same strategies of magic and illusion be

used to engage the learner in the tasks to be performed, and make those tasks obvious?

This is not to trivialise educational process, but to suggest that if an interactive world is

to be effective then the invisible teacher or trainer responsible for the design must in

some ways perform the same magic as the illusionists. In this case the magic would be

designed to enthral and engage the learner to such an extent that they become a lead

player in the narrative of the content. The responses from the learners might then be

treated in the same was as those from actors in a play as they work through the script.

The responses to the section of the application where users were given a list of

documents to which they could link (illustrated in Figure 7.38 following), highlighted

particular issues with the interactive process, as shown by these comments:

[Anna] I can see that its intention is to be just a brief summary. They're not in point form or anything and it really doesn't imply ... the box implies that I can click on it and that there is something further to do there but I would have expected to see it more in point form.

[Joel] Well, there was a box around it but there were no instructions. Maybe a little tab underneath saying 'Click here' or something would have made it a little easier to follow. The icons, I didn't see it before, doesn't say forward or back on it which I was looking for

before.

7-243

________ _.

$

Kelly's evidence regarding the treatment ot A_orlglnol w o m e n by o m a n named Harrington. Governor King allows Potramatta settlers to use lorce In response to Aboriginal attacks on whites and their sheep. Governor Ttiomas Brisbane's proclamation of martial law following violence at Bathurst. Governor Darling deploys soldiers to the Argyle district. following the murder of white stock-keepers. Excerpts from the report of the Select Committee on Aborigines In the British Settlements. 1837. The Tasmanian Executive Council. 1828, warns of a bloody, private war between settlers and Aborigines. Excerpt from a speech by William Cox to a public meeting In Bathurst In 1824. A Bathurst petition demands the government protect settlers from Aboriginal aggression.

SETTLER* AND SQUATTERS

j_ . m

with them, founded on several instances of

their humanity and generosity, which shall be noticed in their proper places, has entirely reversed my opinion; and led me to conclude,

that the unprovoked outrages committed I upon them, by unprincipled individuals \jimong us, caused the evils we had I experienced.

_*%£"•' /,. St: 0,**^**+**,

Tench, w. (1793) A Complete Account ot the Settlement ot Port Jackson, in New south Wtales Including an Accurate Description ot the Situation ot the Colony: of the Natives, and ot Its Naturat Productions London p.3

-)4 £r -<«•— 'A

£ ffPST C-WTACT

u ] m W t_rUt___aa__tS_____

- " * * • _

Figure 7.38: Communication- Understanding the Purpose

Here Joel articulates a need for communication, which might be negotiated by the

learner setting their preferences for a particular session. As the learner begins to

successfully navigate and become involved with the content they can maintain the

original preference or modify it, dependent on their needs and support requirements. For

example, an 'angel' or intelligent agent might appear on the first occasion saying "The

orange box around the text means you can click on it for more information". O n the

following occasion the prompt might be "Remember to click on the text for more

information", and on subsequent occasions prompts would only be provided as a result

of the learner's request. This is an example of the system being designed and

programmed to adapt to the user, through a dynamic contextual help system. What this

highlights is the area of interactive design - those elements that are critical for the

communication, involvement and manipulating aspects of the title.

Communication (Feedback)

[Anna] Oh! Terrific! Graphics and effects. Roll-overs ... makes m e curious when I roll over

one.

[Danny] Seems pointless without clicking. I don't really know what the point of that was [roll-over on photo]. It's giving additional information [on roll-over of titles].

The above two comments reflect different reactions to the feedback available. Taynton

(1999) suggested that the faith designers place in roll-overs to alert users to possible

7-244

interactions is unjustified, being overridden by the click and find approach to

interactivity.

Control (Navigation)

Making navigation available is not necessarily the solution to successful control, as

shown by the following:

[Danny] Simple looping through pages. Hyperlinking. It's really basic in its interactivity level. It really relies on your going searching for something specific I guess. A general meandering through and just looking. I'd get bored with it very quickly I'd say.

[Joel] Well, once you know what the icons are, it's easy ... it's basic to follow where to go, but first you've got to find out what the icons are ... like scrolling the page and going to click on how to get the icons up.

Control (Choices)

Similarly, the options provided to users to control access to content may not match their

expectations or prior experience:

[Simon] Right! I was expecting to get a search request, a dialogue box where you type in words to search for. ... It's given m e an alphabetical listing of topics and it actually includes the topic that I had decided to look for.

Design (Interface)

Another aspect to emerge from the comments of participants relates to what they

perceived from the interface as presented. For example, David (working with Convict

Fleet to Dragon Boat) noted that he did not observe the way a screen had changed and a

similar response was made with the table interface used with Frontier (as shown in

Figure 7.39 following) and referenced by the following comments:

[Nicholas] I noticed that once you got past this first Main Menu, each of these [the table interface]... I haven't clicked the rest of them, but each of these one or two were the same format. Y o u had the same sort of materials to select which is good. If they changed around too much, it would be too hard to understand how to do it... like what things were there for selection. ... The only thing I didn't like ... it actually didn't have anything to do with the interaction ... when you go into these [MainMenu headings] it doesn't give you the headings of what they were. So ... you get lost, but the interaction was fine.

Panny] That 'Main Menu' is doubling up on this whole thing here [the navigation bar]. It could have gone straight into this and that would've given you all the information that you needed.

[Kahli] They could have changed the pictures here [the table interface]. That was pretty boring the way it was that same thing every time. Doesn't seem to have a lot of options there really. But I thought that was O K .

7-245

Figure 7.39: Interface and Perception

Even though the name of the topic was displayed on the navigation bar, few users

picked up its presence and function (if it was clicked, each of the main menu items were

displayed, enabling quick access between topics). This seems to highlight an issue with

communication and design - how much do you standardise and how much do you vary?

I suspect the answer lies in the extent to which the user has been integrated into the

narrative, because the user will either expect those objects to be there or, if unexpected,

be able to interpret their purpose or function. Given this option, a possible extension to

C E L will be applications where there are multiple players, some of w h o m may pass

through part of the interactive landscape, alter it and leave. W h e n another player returns

to that landscape they will encounter changes. This is quite usual in the real world, and

implementing this in a computer based environment will be a function of both pedagogy

and design.

Users also indicated a desire for consistency and variation - a complex issue, but one

also quite typical in the everyday world. Continuing the reference to the table metaphor

(see Figure 7.39), its intent was readily understood by each of the participants.

However, there was for Anna an expectation that the objects on the table would vary

according to topic area being investigated:

7-246

[Anna] Seeing the same menu for each of them was really disappointing. It could have been done better. Yes. Different things. And the 'table' metaphor -1 can see that it's a table because of the roll-overs and everything on the table. I'm not focussing on the table, I'm focussing on the icons so perhaps that's where this gets lost [icons at the bottom of the display] It's not a very tight metaphor. And I would have expected different things perhaps in a completely different picture.

If the application is going to present a table metaphor, then the user expects to be able to

select each of the objects shown. Why include some with no apparent purpose other

than graphical balance? Why not change the items on the table as the content changes?

Here again we have a conflict between content and application. While the content (from

an historical perspective) could be divided between Newspaper Articles, Letters,

Journals and Official Documents, analysis of the content revealed that the total number

of entries for these items ranged from 16 (relating to the First Contact area) to 45

(relating to the Settlers and Squatters area). So the design for the First Contact section

could have used a different set of objects to help indicate the different numbers of items

within each sub-category (letters, journals etc). The participants demonstrated the

capability to discriminate the source of documents, and the design could reflect this.

Design (Multimedia)

As with the comments made in relation to the background sounds generated in Convict

Fleet to Dragon Boat, sections of the audio-video presentation in this application

received a similar response:

[Anna] I'm trying to see if this is changing [another part of the screen]. It's a little confusing to see a video, hear a voice, and have to read text all at the same time. ... The sound effects are definitely irritating when you're actually trying to ... The sound [voice-over] is quite disturbing ... not really disturbing ... distracting.

Design (Audience)

Another aspect of design is the target audience of the product. In this example, Sushila

commented on a discrepancy between the menu item to control background sounds

(Ambience) and the target audience - tertiary and secondary students.

[Sushila] And the music note alone [in sound control] would probably be enough without the word to know what is happening but 'Ambience' sort of goes with the music but it depends what level of... what type of person you're focussing on, what level you're targeting the program towards because 'Ambience' is a word that not all people would be happy with. It wouldn't sit well with all people because it's a more formal word.

7-247

Individual (Learning Styles)

Two observations also related to the ways in which the learning styles of individual

learners might be affected during the interactive process. In the case of Sushila, the

mode of presentation was almost gripping:

[Sushila] I was just thinking as that was playing that I was expecting a video and someone narrating, but the pictures actually say more than a video could because a video wasn't around when these sorts of things were happening. A n interaction I would have been expecting would have been a video of someone explaining a little about the history or of an Aboriginal talking about his ancestors ... but the pictures say a lot more than that, because you can replay it and look into the detail of each of the pictures.

However, Danny became frustrated with some of the options available when performing

the search task:

[Danny] The addition of a text entry search would have made it a lot better, made the project a hell of a lot better. I just stumbled across the answer. Like I went through these [options from the table interface] and I had to cover a hell of a lot of information to actually get an answer.

Impressions

By way of conclusion to the analysis of Frontier, the following two observations are

representative of the participants' response to the product:

[Joel] I like the Overview. It's good. They give you an interaction with picture and sound. After you've seen the Overview you know to look into these other areas, but it's not in any particular order so you're not really sure what's best to look into first. And you don't know that it's sound and picture with the Overview because it doesn't say anything like that.

[Kahli] It's easy to navigate around. There's lots of pictures and you can go back and you can stop at any time, speed it up, and that's really good. It seems to have a fair bit of content, there's a lot of writing and a lot of words, if you read through every single one.

Summary

Working with the Frontier product, participants had access to more program-controlled

presentations than were evident in titles such as Dispossessed, Diggers & Democrats or

Australian Stamps. This was reflected in both the content audit trails and interactive

profiles, where the audio-visual presentation of material took a greater proportion of the

time interacting. One of the issues to emerge from this is the extent to which

participants were engaged during the presentation, or simply patient. Certainly

individuals like Sushila were highly impressed by the way the presentations identified

the major issues of the content area. As this product was developed by Australia's

public broadcaster, it is probable that expertise in producing confronting video footage

7-248

was responsible for the effectiveness of those sequences implemented within Frontier.

The extent to which C E L design teams can afford this level of expertise might be one of

the indicators of their ultimate success. Even so, as Joel observed, too much of a good

thing can potentially make the user bored.

With respect to the individual comments derived from the transcripts, one of the major

issues to arise was associated with the way in which the interface is presented and the

options made available to the user. In the case of the "Internal M e n u " used by Frontier,

which displayed the table metaphor for access to content, participants either did not

perceive that the navigation bar contained the name of the topic (Nicholas) or became

frustrated that it performed a similar function to the Main M e n u (Danny). The extent to

which the user is able to interpret the interface and be in control of the information

access will also impact on the success of the interactive environment.

The analysis in the following section addresses the Australian Stamps title, providing an

additional set of data on the link between interactivity and effective communication.

7-249

TITLE 4: AUSTRALIAN STAMPS

About the Title

Produced by A P T A (1997), this title was designed for the user to "explore the

wonderful world of Australian stamps and enjoy for hours the new multimedia C D -

R O M experience of discovering information about Australia and its former colonies".

Figure 7.40: The Wonderful World of Australian Stamps

The main menu, illustrated in Figure 7.40, provides the user with 7 different topic areas

and a vertical navigation bar for access to topic and sub-topics as well as glossary and

searching facilities. Each of the topics provides access to a wide range of sub-topics and

related information. Even from the brief description of the title above, two aspects of

this form of presentation emerge - that multimedia is an enjoyable experience and that

part of that experience is discovery. While there is clearly delight in discovering

something new and interesting, I suggest that discovery will not be effective unless the

user is able to navigate successfully and with meaning towards a goal.

An interesting observation with this particular title is that very few participants actually

got to view any stamps, as it often required the selection of a topic, a sub-topic, a

7-250

content area and a theme before a stamp was actually displayed. As with the other titles,

none of the participants examined the accompanying booklet, which provided additional

details that might have enabled more directed exploration and involvement.

Interactive Constructs

This title provided participants with a limited range of interactive constructs essentially

designed to support navigation from the main menu to related content areas. The major

interactive types employed by Australian Stamps axe detailed in Table 7.7:

interactivity

Clickable-Objects

Hyperlink

Text Entry

Description

User can click on a display object to activate specific responses

User can link to another location by clicking on a word or object. User is able to enter text of their own choosing

Example

Menu and sub-topic items Display of stamps Up/Down arrows for sub-topics Jump to content area from list Jump to different topic Content search facility

Table 7.7: Interactive Options in Australian Stamps

Audit Trails

Five participants worked with this title. The methods of access were similar to those

previously discussed, in terms of the limited amount of content visited, but differed with

respect to the increase in the Navigational interactivity recorded. I believe this was

essentially a function of the hierarchical nature of the application. The two Audit Trails

shown for Solveig (Figure 7.41) and Nancy (Figure 7.42) illustrate the ways in which

the content was accessed.

In the case of Solveig, she worked through 5 of the 7 content areas, but as shown in

Figure 7.41, her total contact time was approximately 15 minutes. In comparison,

Nancy spent most of her contact time within a single topic, and approximated 17

minutes, as shown in Figure 7.42. This lower access time (in comparison to those

recorded with the other titles) may be a reflection of the interface, which was text

oriented and provided little guidance for the user. After selecting a topic, the user was

presented with a series of questions which if selected and pursued, eventually reached a

set of content material and images of stamps that were designed to provide an answer to

the original question.

7-251

Main M e n u What Makes A Stamp History of Stamps H o w To Collect Famous & Desirable Investing Producing Stamps Using Stamps

Navigation Bar Credits Glossary Find Related htormatton From the Top To the Topics Go To

out

" I " T - II ! T — T — II " ~ ~

II 1 1

. .. 1

~ . - - . " • - - • ' '

1 • _ . '" 1 "

1 11 1 1 1

1 -

"

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation • Navigation DExploration •involvement •Manipulation •Accidental •Reflection

Figure 7.41: Content Audit Trail for Solveig

Main M e n u What Makes A Stamp History of Stamps H o w To Collect Famous a Desirable Investing Producing Stamps Using Stamps

Navigation Bar Crecfits Glossary Find Retete. Information From the Top To the Topics Go To Quit

1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

I I I I 1

1 1

0 5 10 13 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation •Navigation •Exploration •involvement •Manipulation • Accidental •Reflection

Figure 7.42: Content Audit Trail for Nancy

The following section describes the interactive profiles for Solveig and Nancy in terms

of the implications for the effective use of C E L products.

Interactive Profiles

The profile of these interactions is consistent with many of those generated by

participants working with the other titles. A s mentioned above, of interest is the time

factor, as the contact times for these five participants averaged 17.6 minutes compared

to in excess of 23.7 minutes for titles such as Real Wild Child. However, within that

7-252

time frame these participants were still able to make a similar number of recorded

interactions. A s shown by the profiles for Solveig (Figure 7.43) and Nancy (Figure

7.45), a balance between involvement and exploration was not achieved at the

conclusion of the session. It is therefore possible that this concept of interactive balance

might provide a new indicator by which the effectiveness of C E L applications could be

measured.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55

Interactions

Presentation

Manipulation

• Navigation

•Accidental

• Exploration

Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.43: Interactivity Profile for Solveig

U^

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.44: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Solveig

7-253

21 25 29

Interactions

33 37 41 45

Presentation

• Manipulation

• Navigation

•Accidental

• Exploration

Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.45: Interactivity Profile for Nancy

a a 3 c e _ o OL

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.46: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Nancy

A n additional observation from the cumulative percentage diagrams (Figure 7.44 and

Figure 7.46) is that both Solveig and Nancy spent a reasonable proportion of their time

reflecting on various aspects of the product - 2 9 % and 3 3 % respectively. With this form

of observation, the extent to which users make comments about the application may

also provide a measure about the engaging qualities of the application. In the context of

these comments it should be noted that Solveig was interested and motivated to use the

product, but was restricted by a number of its interactive characteristics.

7-254

Interactive Experiences

To provide a context for explaining these trends the following examples demonstrate

the themes emerging from the spoken aloud comments made by the participants. These

comments are categorised according the to themes and sub-themes that were identified

in Chapter 5 and structured in Figure 5.3, page 5-127.

Engagement (Motivation)

In making a general observation about the Australian Stamps title, Solveig focused on a

range of issues that would impact on the engagement of a range of users.

[Solveig] It's ineffective. It interacts but it depends on what audience it's aimed for. Children wouldn't watch it because there's nothing there to excite them about stamps. It's very dead, there's no colour, no animation, nothing to make them want to go out and buy them. Perhaps I missed it, but there was nowhere they could obtain further information if they wanted. Where they could purchase stamps from catalogues? There was no excitement in it. Boring, just really boring.

Communication (Understanding the Purpose)

The structure of the main menu, in terms of visual communication, is critical to the

meaning conveyed through the combination of text and graphics. While there are many

examples of confusing symbols, the meaning we ascribe to these images is clearly

critical to developing an understanding of our role in the application. In commenting on

her expectations of the menu topics, as requested by the instructions for this activity

(Appendix D.l), Natasha made the following observations:

[Natasha] What Makes a Stamp: how it's made, the process of actually making it. History of Stamps: what they were like in the past and how they came about. H o w to Collect: just gives you instructions on how you go about collecting them. Oh! That's interesting! Producing Stamps: the process of making them and what makes a stamp. Using Stamps. What is that? I'm not quite sure what it means, but I presume it means desirable - the most popular stamps and which ones most people would like.

This range of meanings and expectations derived from the topic items displayed to the

user was consistently varied, and participants were sometimes clear, sometimes unclear,

as to the content associated with particular options. The following two observations

illustrate this difference in reaction to the visual cues presented from the main menu

(Mark K.) and sub-menu (Jessmyn):

[Mark K.] Judging by the graphics, it's probably the actual physical production of the stamp and how they actually look, what's involved using stamps.

7-255

[Jessmyn] It's given m e two questions that they are obviously going to answer in the next section. It's telling you that definitive stamps are available over an extended time, which basically means everyday stamps. It's answered the question completely. They're answering the questions, straight to the point.

Communication (Feedback)

Providing feedback to the user to support communication is recognised as essential to

interactive processes, but it is not always provided:

[Solveig] Y o u know the little topics at the side didn't really invite you, they just sat there. Some of them [in other applications] glow or flash or do something, but they just sat there doing nothing.

Here Solveig is expressing a need for visual feedback, an indication or response from

the system that an area is active, and that selecting it will initiate a response. Interesting,

some participants responded to the animated displays of Real Wild Child in similar

ways, expressing a desire for less animation. This is another example of the potential for

negotiation between user and program.

Control (Navigation)

Being able to move between locations within the application is essential, but it is not

always simple:

[Nancy] What are they [the buttons] - to go back to the interactions? In other software programs you just click twice and you go to the information you want. But in here, I found that you have to go back and then start all over.

This reliance on past experience seems important, as the web is in c o m m o n use,

especially with this group of participants. In terms of negotiation, this might be resolved

by developers enabling users to set preferences within the application. While this may

increase the development cost, a design well defined at the commencement of a project

does not necessarily increase the workload significantly.

Highlighting the variation in individual interpretations of content and interface is the

following comment. Natasha also indicated that she was "in control" of the process

which is important for the user to developing an understanding of the overall structure

of an application.

[Natasha] At the start it was fairly good. You had to click on that heading just to get to what you wanted to W h e n you first got into the G o To section, I wasn't quite sure to click on the topics given and I couldn't figure that out until they were asking questions. It's pretty good though It's easy to get back to the start and these [controls] are pretty self-explanatory.

Control (Choices)

The issue of control is also identified in terms of consistency between applications,

shown by Solveig's comment. However, what remains difficult to ascertain are the

characteristics of options that are intuitive compared to those that are not:

Figure 7.47: Controls or Links: Intuitive or Non-Intuitive?

The screen Solveig was referring to is illustrated in Figure 7.47, and it would appear

there is a mismatch between c o m m o n internet standards and those presented in this

applications. The user sees a list of topics but there is no c o m m o n indicator that these

are active links to additional content. Based on this group of participants, users will

discover this functionality relatively quickly, but if the application contains a number of

these inconsistencies, h o w much information may be missed?

Design (Interface)

Another aspect of the application was the way in which graphics were displayed and

accessed. The six black rectangles at the top-left of the display shown in Figure 7.48

represent six different images associated with the "Kangaroo on M a p " design, with the

7-

current image indicated by the red dot in top left rectangle. Clicking on one of the

rectangles would reveal the corresponding graphic This was one of the responses to this

screen:

[Mark K.] There's a red dot in this. D o you know what the red dot means? I'm not sure. It's the same one right through.

This did not appear to be an intuitive interface. More interestingly, the participants

working with this title rarely found an image of a stamp, which required some three

links to reveal. O f those w h o did, only Mark K. made the connection with this interface.

Figure 7.48: Interface to Access Six Discrete Images

Interference to the interactive process has resulted from information about the structure

and metaphor of the title not being communicated effectively to the user. While this

information was contained in the accompanying documentation, the booklet did not

seem to be recognised as a source of useful information. The development of a narrative

structure where the user becomes part of a story in which the images, activities and

interactions are consistent and transparent is one possible means to reduce such

interference to create meaningful interactions.

A separate issue associated with the interface occurred for both Solveig and Nancy,

with Solveig being concerned about the "flashing" of the screen:

[Solveig] W h y did that flick from one screen to another? [referring to a jump from a main menu topic to a sub-sub-topic]

7-258

In this case, both Solveig and Nancy double-clicked the main menu topic. The response

by the program was to interpret both clicks - the first to jump to the sub-topic and the

second to the sub-sub-topic. What was interesting is that, apart from the "flashing",

neither Solveig nor Nancy appeared aware that they had skipped a complete level of

content choices.

Individual (Knowledge Building)

Of all the participants, Mark K. was the only one to offer an admission of gaining new

knowledge:

[Mark K.] This is sort of interesting, describing what the collection would be like or will be like. O K ! They're talking about the actual structure of the collection. I'd not actually thought of that, I thought you just put stamps in a book.

This highlights the difference in approaches between participants and what happens

when you access an area that triggers an association. While this comment appears to

vindicate the promotional material associated with Australian Stamps, the question can

also be asked as to what mechanisms other than association might guide users to

discover aspects of individual interest in the content area.

Individual (Relevance)

In terms of the effect products have on the individual, issues such as prior experience in

the content area can also impact the overall effectiveness"

[Solveig] I used to collect stamps year ago - if they were going to write a section about mint or used stamps you would have thought that the headings would have been 'mint' and then 'used', rather than scattering them. It's a case of fragmented information. It's very hard to read and it's not classified in a very clear way.

Here there is a conflict between Solveig's expectation of how the content layout and

presentation should appear and the layout prescribed by the designer and subject expert.

In this particular application there appears to have been an attempt to include as much

information as possible in a relatively technical (ie. subject specific) format. While it

can be assumed to be accurate, it remains extremely dense. The issue of information

design comes to the fore here. What exactly should you present to maximise the

communication of information to the user, and what activities are there for them to be

able to respond? For example, rather than presenting the information all at once, why

not present a short segment and ask the user if they would like to see more, and in what

7-259

format. In this way the negotiation elements of the encounter can be continued

throughout the interaction,

Impressions

The final two observations from the participants provide an general overview of the

reactions to Australian Stamps.

[Nancy] I like the Introduction. I think it tells you straight away what you are looking for. But these functions [at the right of the screen] make m e think twice, If I want to go back to do something, I didn't know which one to click. I thought by clicking in there [pointing at screen] I might get some more things, but eventually I had to go back to the menu. I think it was useful, something very new for me. Very brief information, which is good because you may be looking at what you want.

This is an interesting observation as Nancy saw very little of the whole program and did

not actually view a single stamp, even though she explored areas where there were

further links to the actual stamp images. The application also consisted of extensive text

information over a wide range of topics that it appears Nancy also did not appreciate.

[Jessmyn] It was basically pretty straightforward. It gives you the topics and it covers them bit by bit as it presents the questions on the topic areas. Navigation is pretty simple. Everything's all there, accompanied by an icon. I didn't find any problems with it. Well if you're interested in this kind of thing I think it would be great. You have heaps of general information that would be essential for doing things properly with collecting.

This is a telling statement. While there is an underlying assumption that only people

interested in the content area would be using the application, it is at odds with the

hypermedia rhetoric that promotes the linking concept. This application, as with others

used for the study, did nothing to help the user become integrated into its narrative.

W h y should the developers not implement strategies to engage both the motivated and

casual user? It is as if the interactivity is simply a technique to move (navigate) from

one piece of information to another, with no attempt from the program to engage the

user once they access that information.

Summary

This section has focused on those participants w h o worked with the interactivity

embodied in the Australian Stamps title. As with the other titles considered, the

interactivity was considered in terms of the content audit trails, the interactive profiles

and the interactive experiences.

7-260

With respect to the audit trails, the two examples used to illustrate the access undertaken

by participants suggested that they did not uncover the depth of the content available, as

evidenced by the comparatively short time spent in each section. However, based on

their observations, the participants were able to navigate to main content areas

successfully, despite expressing uncertainty as to what that area might contain. The

discussion also noted that information provided by the producers, in the form of an

accompanying booklet, was not accessed by any of the participants. The reasons why

participants might not have availed themselves of this opportunity was not evident in

the transcribed comments.

The interactive profiles provided trends that reinforced the potential of interactive

balance as a means to assess the benefits of C E L applications. In addition, the extent to

which the structure of, and interactions embedded within, an application affects

useability was considered with respect to the comparatively high level of reflection by

the participants on their interactive experience. Finally, the extracts from the

participants' spoken observations provided additional support for assessing the means

by which a learner and user might negotiate the overall learning experience where C E L

is the educational medium.

The following section provides an analysis of the ways in which participants worked

with the interactivity associated with the second philatelic title, New Zealand Stamps,

7-261

TITLE 5: NEW ZEALAND STAMPS

About the Title

According to the developers (New Zealand Post, 1997), this product was designed for a

range of ages, allowing people to explore the philatelic history of N e w Zealand. The

initial screen, illustrated in Figure 7.49, shows each of the four menu items (Scapes,

Critters, Album and Information) fully extended from the left. The user can select either

of these and has short-cut access between sections, as detailed in the Help section. The

Scapes component includes a number of roll-overs and animations while the Critters

section includes three games. Within the Album section, users can either explore

information of stamps by a number of categories or create one or more "virtual" albums

of their own collections.

Figure 7.49: New Zealand Stamps Virtual Album

One of the interesting features of this title is that the menu items can either be selected

by clicking on the respective tab or by clicking-and-dragging the tab to the right. O n the

right of the screen are black and white images of stamps the user can collect within the

current Scape. In this application, unlike the others used in the study, there is no main

menu. Instead, users commence in the Kiwiana scape and from there can navigate to

7-262

any of the other topic areas. Information provided in the More Info section details

keyboard shortcuts to each of the various content areas; however, none of the

participants used or determined the availability of this option. "Doorways" from one

scape to another were also provided, but these too were not discovered.

Interactive Constructs

This title provided an extensive range of interactivity, as shown in Table 7.8 following.

While not specifically identified by the participants, I believe such a wide and possibly

complex set of options may degrade the operation of the product and the subsequent

engagement with the application.

Interactivity

Clickable-Objects

Hyperlink

Text Entry

Roll-Overs

Controlled Navigation

Click-Drag

Target Shooting

Automatic Scrolling

Keyboard Shortcuts

Description

User can click on a display object to activate specific responses

User can link to another location by clicking on a word or object. User is able to enter text of their own choosing Responds when user positions pointer over object on display

Program provides cues as to which direction to take

User is able to drag an object from one display location to another

User has to hit a moving abject by clicking it with the pointer

A list of information is scrolled automatically

Key combinations to navigate through the application

Example

Menu and sub-topic items Display of stamps Up/Down arrows for sub-topics Link from a year, theme or design to related stamps Content search facility

All the Scapes have hidden objects that appear when the pointer is over their screen location Within each Scape, positioning the pointer to the edge of the display activates an "Explore" prompt, including a directional arrow Stamps positioned at the right of each Scape display can be moved around the screen A series of stamps fall into a bowl of water and the user has to click those requested In the Album section, the list of years will scroll up or if the pointer is located at the top of the list Using Shift-Q will commence the exit routine

Table 7.8: Interactive Options in New Zealand Stamps

Audit Trails

The Audit Trails shown in the following figures suggest a more widespread access of

content as well as more focused activities in certain areas. A n interesting aspect of this

title was the extensive time spent coming to understand the initial screen (in the order of

5 minutes for each participant), reflecting a reaction to a different form of starting

screen. Rather than a clear set of topic options, the user had to discover the various

7-263

options available, including the interactions available within the Kiwiana scape as well

as the options accessible through the other menu tabs. However, this extensive

exploration compares with the time spent exploring the initial screens in Voodoo

Lounge, which also provided a virtual environment.

The interface for this title also required the user to interpret the labels on the menu tags.

As will be shown in the Interactive Experiences section, participants did not intuitively

interpret the Critters section to involve some simple games nor link the initial screen as

being within one of the four available scapes. Engaging the user at an early stage as to

the narrative structure would appear to be another critical element of the overall

interactive process.

The content audit trails presented show how Tiago tended to remain within a single

content area (Figure 7.50) for extended periods while Dusk was actively moving

backwards and forwards from one location to another (Figure 7.51).

Introduction Scapes Kiwiana Forest Metro Waterworld Quit

Critters Weta Tafcahe Tuatara

Album Select an Issue Year Themes Designer Printer Stamp Alburns

Hore Inf ot mation Help Glossary Phaatelic

1 1 1 1

] |

1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation ^Navigation •Exploration •involvement • Manipulation • Accidental •Reflection

Figure 7.50: Content Audit Trail for Tiago

7-264

Introduction Scapes Kiwiana Forest Metro Waterworld Quit

Critters Weta Takahe Tuatara

Album Select an issue Year Themes Designer Printer Stamp Albums

More Information Help Glossary Philatelic

1 1 1 |

1 i 1 II

I | _j L_ 1 II 1 1

1 1 II • 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 I I II 1 1 1

L |

1 1 I M i i :

II i

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation ^Navigation •Exploration •Involvement ^Manipulation • Accidental •Reflection

Figure 7.51: Content Audit Trail for Dusk

Interactive Profiles

Despite the seemingly complex interface and broad range of interactive types, the

interactivity recorded from participants working with New Zealand Stamps revealed a

higher percentage of Involvement and Manipulation than was evident with the other

titles, apart from Voodoo Lounge.

Figure 7.52: Interactivity Profile for Tiago

7-265

For example, as shown in Figure 7.52, Tiago achieved a balance between involvement

and exploration at approximately the 14th interaction, which commenced after

approximately 6 minutes. This is reflected in percentages represented in Figure 7.53.

For Tiago, this involvement occurred when he became involved in one of the activities

to search for hidden stamps.

Figure 7.54: Interactivity Profile for Dusk

7-266

In comparison, the profiles for Dusk (Figure 7.54 and Figure 7.55) present a higher

degree of exploration with a balance, albeit lower, between Navigation, Involvement

and Manipulation.

_ ES

3 c • _ • a.

100 -, 90

80

70 •

60-

50

40-

30-

20-

10

0-

/ /

__3__l

y A • |

~~* / y\ i i

L ^ " "

7.375

Interaction

/ -?

/ /

D Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulatbn

• Accidental

• Reflection

Figure 7.55: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Dusk

Interactive Experiences

To provide further details on these trends, the following discussion focuses on the

comments made by the six participants w h o worked with New Zealand Stamps. A s with

the other titles, the comments are categorised according to themes and sub-themes

derived in Chapter 5 and displayed in Figure 5.3 on page 5-127.

Engagement (Motivation)

This theme focuses on the factors that impact on initiating and maintaining a user's

motivation. In this case Darren was not interested in the topic, but was able to articulate

h o w that the program might have activated interest:

[Darren] Well. I've basically got no interest in the program, in the topic. Could be handy if they had some sort of voice to say what's going on or something written on the screen telling you what you had to do but... some sort of screen to say what it's all about. It really didn't have that, it just went straight into it.

It is unlikely that every learner who is given access to an application will be interested

in it. So part of the role of the design team is to generate an environment that is

attractive to even the most disinterested student. These strategies are already part of

7-267

learning practice, but implementing them in C E L environments appears to be a more

complex issue, linked to developing our notion of human-computer interaction.

The extent to which the user becomes motivated to continue working with an

application is clearly critical. However the issues raised by Darren were not evident

with Dusk's experience:

[Dusk] My first impression of the home page was that it was a quite distracting graphic. But after moving the mouse and finding that a lot of the graphic is interactive, it didn't seem as distracting. ... The mapping of the site was quite logical. It does engage you in the content. You have to progress through steps to get to your answer.

The marked difference between participant responses highlights the need to investigate

further the extent to which interactive constructs can be implemented to support the

characteristics of the individual learner.

Engagement (Interest)

As identified with the other titles, most participants experienced conflict between the

content expected as a result of the topic names or section icons, and what resulted in the

actual presentation. The outcome can be a loss of interest:

[Richard] I'm not sure what Critters is. I think I'm probably going to get stamps with different types of critters on them. I imagine these are indigenous to N e w Zealand, these critters. No, I'm not quite clear as to what the purpose of this is actually. Maybe I'll come back a bit later on. No, I still don't really understand this. I do understand that you click here but I still don't understand how you associate Critters with this [the screen presented when one of the critters was selected]. No. At the moment, it's losing m y interest. I don't really like this.

Communication (Understanding the Purpose)

This application also provoked some comments that illustrate the frustration that can

result with unsuccessful interactions:

Parren] Everything I try seems to be a dead end! I guess the program is asking me to find

these postcards, these stamps.

The tone used when Darren made this comment indicated his frustrated and lack of

purpose or orientation in the activity. They users appear quite capable of undertaking

the activity (in this case collecting stamps) but were not able to complete the activity

because its role in terms of the whole application was unclear.

7-268

Communication (Feedback)

The following sequence illustrates a particular issue well established by the CEL

research - the expectation and need for feedback. While Tiago got immediate feedback

when a stamp was collected (see Figure 7.56 below), it was the lack of recognition that

the task had been completed which caused this response:

[Tiago] I'm really puzzled by what I'm supposed to be doing here. I'm just trying my luck to see what happens. I see it gives m e information on how I can click stamps. It doesn't say anything about what it's actually here for or what the themes are. I've actually just realised you have a little arrow with which you can explore. And by m y previous experiences I'm going to have to collect them, I'm going to have to find the other stamps somewhere around the screen. N o w , I'll see if I can actually finish the stamps to see if I actually get a reward system. Considering that it's about fish, it'll probably be a little movie or voiceover interaction about fishes. I was hoping to have something as a reward. I feel disappointed. I expected more than just clicking on these things.

The expectation for some kind of feedback (not necessarily a reward, but a response to

indicate a task is complete) is well represented by this response. As a critical component

of the prompt-response-feedback cycle, this exemplar suggests that had some feedback

been given there may have been the motivation to look at another of the scapes to

receive another reward. Regardless of age, it would appear users expect some indication

of success or completion.

Figure 7.56: The Collecting Stamps Activity

7-269

In a constructivist environment, this may be hard to rationalise as it is a user's choice as

to how tasks are employed. So even if using the computer as a tool to test some

hypothesis, there may still be the expectation for some confirmation that aspects of the

task have been undertaken correctly or completed successfully, as suggested by the

Reactive-Confirmation level of interactivity (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993).

The stamp collecting activity (Figure 7.56) itself provides an excellent example of the

problems that can be encountered when there is a lack of communication between user

and application, despite the information being provided. In this case, each of the four

scapes displayed monochrome images of stamps at the right side of the screen. W h e n

the mouse is rolled over each stamp, it enlarges and the words "Find M e " are displayed.

When exploring the screens within the scape, the stamps remain visible and, as the

mouse rolls over the scenes in certain locations, an area enlarges as a stamp and the

words "Click to Collect" are displayed. W h e n the user click's the area, the

corresponding stamp at the right of the screen is coloured. Interestingly, if you click but

then leave the mouse in the same location, the words "Already Collected" appear, which

was quite confusing for Tiago.

Even though he managed to collect all the stamps within a scape, he did not perceive the

text on the coloured stamps which read "Double Click for the Encyclopaedia", which

took you straight to the information relating to that stamp in the Album section. This

may have been the result of the highly graphical screen, including background sounds

and animations, which distracted him from all the information being presented. While

this appears to be an engaging, complex activity, the cues and help provided did not

enable the necessary links to the tasks to be made. Perhaps having a prompt such as

"Explore this part of N e w Zealand and find as many stamps as you can. Once you have

found a stamp you can examine its details in the Album" would have assisted.

Interestingly, one of the activities within this application was creating your own stamp

album by identifying stamps of interest and dragging them to its "virtual" pages. N o one

discovered this option. Similarly, the application had a mix of simple object interactions

(Sims, 1997a) which were highly amusing to one child, who worked with the title in

between observations, but not to the adult participants. From the range of activities, it

appeared the application was designed for a mix of audiences, but did not provide the

appropriate entry points for those groups. A simple question at the beginning - would

7-270

you like to play "hunt the stamp or look for specific philatelic information" might have

given even these participants more purpose in their activities.

In contrast to Tiago's involvement with the stamp collecting activity, a different

response in terms of the level of communication established through various feedback

or response mechanisms is illustrated by the following:

[Darren] I still don't get this Find Me. It keeps saying Find Me. Do I look for a bird? Can I ask the computer to search for this stamp and it will come out with all the information about it? But it didn't work. I guess these [Scapes] are all going to be the same. These screens will come up with a background photo or scene and have a series of stamps on the side which you can move around, but I really don't see what the point is.

This is indeed what the application does, but only after the stamp has been found. It

would appear that the user could intuit the purpose but was not been given the tools to

implement that goal. The designers appear to have high expectations of the tasks a user

can undertake, with the assumption that the user will be able to determine the purpose

and functionality independently. This relates to creating some form of symbiotic or

negotiated relationship between the user and designer (Kirsch, 1997; Sims, 1998).

Communication (Two-Way)

The theme of communication can also be seen in the extent to which the application is

proactive in the communication process, possibly to the extent of initiating responses, as

detailed in the following.

[Darren] Well I really haven't got any idea of what's going on here. I guess if I click on that [stamp], it'll probably give m e a bigger version. You'd subscribe to some things. That one -Collect M e -1 guess you'd send away and get the stamp. I've go no idea of what I'd explore by clicking on that (the Explore indicator). What I'd do would be to go to More Information to see what's actually going on.

Here Darren is almost begging for some input as to the overall purpose of the

application and what they should do. This link between communication and frustration

is also shown by Melissa's comments. While she had little problem accessing the

controls, little engagement and resultant meaning was derived from the interactions.

[Melissa] I can't even see that [detail in interface]] I've got no idea if you'll explore it in categories. I don't know if it'll give you a history of N Z stamps. I have no idea what I'm getting myself into. Oh! [surprised by jangling Christmas tree]. That's interesting. Lots of fun. No, it's not clear exactly. I thought that when I go into these [roll-overs] it'd say what you're getting yourself into but it doesn't really. I don't even know where I clicked to get there. It's fairly fuzzy in outlining instructions and where you're going to go. I don't even know how to get out of it. Let m e out!!! It's very difficult. You'd think I'd know how to get

myself out!

7-271

Control (Navigation)

Developing control over the application and being able to navigate effectively is an

integral component of successful interactivity:

[Tiago] The navigation is pretty good. To look at the pictures of stamps by name and dates is pretty good but it doesn't actually tell you how to navigate. I just had to figure it out for myself, finding a screen and guessing what things are. At first I was actually a little stumped on what I had to do. Just having the screen with interaction. I had no idea what to do and I learned as I went along.

[Dusk] I just realised that these little buttons are navigation buttons. There are two main sections or sub-sections to the information section and within the Stamps Centre there are actually four buttons that take you into different sections as well. But also the navigation buttons on the sides of the box lead you to the same place, but it would be quicker using these. The Address Book seems to be the one that you defer to as soon as you open it.

An observation by Taynton (1999) during the transcribing of this session suggested that

this illustrated the way in which a user's experience of the instruction can be affected by

obscure navigation design, which in this case prevented the user from accessing a large

amount of the content. The extent to which the user is able to navigate effectively

through an application contributes to the success of the interactive constructs used to

support the overall learning process.

Control (Choices)

One of the common elements of the interactive process throughout New Zealand

Stamps, as well as the other titles used in the study, was the difficulty participants

experienced when attempting to exit the program.

[Dusk] That's not very well designed! To me, logic dictates that you'd actually have a Quit button to make it a lot more obvious for people like myself

Control (In Control)

Another issue of importance is the extent to which the learner feels they have control

over what is happening with their interaction:

[Tiago] I had this little section here [bottom left of screen] that I couldn't interact with at first - if I hadn't stumbled upon this and figured it out, I probably would have been stuck.

[Richard] And another thing ... if I want to quit out of a window, I don't like being told to

try again. I just want to get out.

[Darren] I'm a bit lost, so I'm just going to go through these things on the side and anything that interacts I'll just have a look at. Whoops! (Album) This was a bit of an accident.

7-272

There seems to be no difficulty with the overt use of the application, where these

participants were able, for example, to quickly interpret that a roll-over will produce a

noise or enlarge a stamp. The learner control provided is functional, however a missing

element would appear to be the learner being in control, actually being able to

determine the purpose and direction of their activities.

Design (Interface)

The link between communication and interface is demonstrated by Tiago's comment

while Melissa expressed a negative emotion to the presentation:

[Tiago] It's very hard to say what to do next. There's no instructions on the screen and things pop out and you can't really follow the instructions even if I could pick one [of the objects] up. There's a few sub-menus which relate to the Album. It doesn't explain anything. There's some interaction with the background which doesn't really help much.

[Melissa] It's interesting with the music going on in the background and the little effects and things like that, but I don't feel that the information is presented to m e in a way that I can navigate through it. It's not very user friendly. I didn't feel very good.

Design (Multimedia)

As with a number of the other titles, participants were acutely aware of discrepancies or

issues with the media used, especially audio:

[Richard] Isn't that the wrong noise for a jet plane [prop plane sound]1}

[Darren] I'll try another one and see what the lizard does. I might listen to that again. What sort of stamp was it? O h no! I didn't listen to the instructions very well! [Try again offered]. N o thanks!

Design (Audience)

Another issue to emerge related to language and communication differences.

[Richard I don't understand the association with critters and stamps. Maybe she told me but I just didn't understand the accent. Couldn't hear it. Fair enough, the graphics are good but there are no critters on page.

This would seem to illustrate the problem with creating something locally and then

hoping it will sell internationally - communication elements such as language and

accent can affect the overall interactive experience.

7-273

Impressions

The following comment provides an indication of the way in which participants reacted

to the New Zealand Stamps title:

[Dusk] Overall, to navigate through the site from the main buttons seems to be quite easy. But once you go into some of the areas, specifically the Scapes and the Critters area, it would be easy to assume that there's not a lot of content within it. Overall, it seems like it detracts from the overall learning process. Like it seems to m e that within these areas [Critters] the only content within it was to design their own stamps or actually just to paint in the colours of your own stamp, giving you a small history of stamps designing in N e w Zealand. That was with a narration ... but you had to go three pages in, on two of the Critters to actually get to that area.

Summary

In this section, the New Zealand Stamps title was considered with respect to the audit

trails, interactive profiles and interactive experience of 5 participants.

The audit trails reflected the variation between individual strategies, some focusing on

discrete content areas and others on jumping backwards and forwards between topics.

The extent to which a user remains within a content area may be a function of the

engagement, which in turn is based on the successful communication being established

through the interactive conditions.

The interactive profiles for two of the participants indicated that where a user

determines the function of the interactivity, achieving the balance between exploring

and being involved can occur more rapidly and after fewer interactions. The comments

provided by the participants again reinforced the issues of communication, feedback

and control as integral to successful interactivity. O f particular interest was the

expressed need for feedback after completion of a set task, and the implications of being

made to feel worthy.

The following section continues the analysis of working with interactivity through an

assessment of participant reactions to Real Wild Child, an historical account of

Australian popular music.

TITLE 6: REAL WILD CHILD

About the Title

Produced by the Real Wild Child Consortium (1997) comprising Mushroom Pictures,

Pacific Advanced Media, the Powerhouse Museum and the ABC/Triple J, this title wa

aimed at the educational and information environments. The application commences

with a streetscape (Figure 7.57) from which users select one of a number of different

building to investigate an era of Australian music. The design of the application was

consistent with the images used by M a m b o ® , a popular brand of casual clothing with

young adults.

Figure 7.57: Real Wild Child

W h e n selected, each era commences with an audiovisual display and the user is then

transported to the first of a series of "rooms" from which information and video clips

can be accessed. Each room contains vignettes of artefacts and personalities from that

era, and more elaborate source material can be directly accessed from a database linked

to all the available eras. Real Wild Child is characterised by constant animations and

sounds that are integrated into the overall interface metaphor.

7-275

Interactive Constructs

O f the range of interactions available (Table 7.9), none of the 6 participants discovered

the sections with the target shooting games and few indicated an explicit understanding

of Real Wild Child's underlying structure.

Interactivity

Clickable-Objects

Hyperlink

Scrolling Text

Roll-Overs

Automatic Navigation

Controlled Navigation

Click-Drag

Target Shooting

Keyboard Shortcuts

Description

User can click on a display object to activate specific responses User can link to another location by clicking on a word or object. User can use a scroll-bar to move up and down textual information Responds when user positions pointer over object on display The display animates as a result of the position of the pointer Program provides cues as to which direction to take User is able to drag an object from one display location to another

User has to hit a moving abject by clicking it with the pointer Key combinations to navigate through the application

Example

Click on building to select music era Objects in rooms Link from room to database Link from index to artist Scroll through information about an band Objects within rooms Navigational indicators in rooms On the main menu, the user can loop around the street-scape Within each room, clicking at the edge of the display Stamps positioned at the right of each Scape display can be moved around the screen Cockroaches moving across the screen Space-Bar activates contextual on­screen help

Table 7.9: Interactive Options in Real Wild Child

Possibly the continual animations and complex interface limited the options the user

could competently deal with through cognition or perception, and consequently

potential areas of interest could have been missed. Based on the interactions and

comments, participants gave no indication that they had internalised the building and

room metaphor and the links between objects and their respective database descriptions.

Audit Trails

As can be seen from the content audit trails illustrated (Figure 7.58 and Figure 7.59

following), Linda and Mark H. were involved for longer periods of time (in excess of 20

minutes) and, in comparison with the other titles viewed, were more active or variable

in the tasks being completed. This might have resulted from the variety of interactive

options or the proliferation of movement. Alternatively, given the wide range of

interactions possible, the dynamic nature of the interface and the comments made,

participants may have had greater difficulty in developing understanding of the structure

of Real Wild Child, as evidenced by the frequent change in interaction type.

7-276

Introduction Main Menu Milk Bar (1956-1963) House (1964-1968) House (1969-1973) ABC (1974-1977) Pub (1978-1983) Oub(1984-1JW»L_ Garage (1990s)

Dwine Wisdom Telephone Box Index Acknowledgements^ Bibliqgraphy Biography

Got Dressed Exit

' — ; 1 1 ..„1...... II 1 I ill | |

i ii i n t ' i ii i i _ t t '

I n n i i - • ^

1 1 m i

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: • Presentation ^Navigation •Exploration •involvement ^Manipulation •JAccidental •Reflection

Figure 7.58: Content Audit Trail for Linda

Introduction Main M e n u NBk Bar(1956-1963) House (1964-1968) House (1969-1973) ABC (1974-1977) Pub (1978-1983) Club (1984-1989) Garage (1990s)

Divine W i s d o m Telephone Box Index Acknowledgements Bibfography Biography

Get Dressed ExR

I I 1 II

1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

_____ |

| |

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation ^Navigation •Exploration •Involvement ^Manipulation • Accidental •Reflection

Figure 7.59: Content Audit Trail for Mark H.

Interactive Profiles

The profiles presented by these participants included a higher percentage of

Presentation, as navigation to each room resulted in an audio-visual presentation that

lasted approximately 1 minute. A s shown in Figure 7.60, Linda attained a balance

between interaction type after approximately 80 recorded interactions or 25 minutes and

Mark H. (Figure 7.62) after 55 recorded interactions or 18 minutes.

7-277

_ o> _ c o _ e a.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

17 25 33 41 49 57 65

Interactions

Presentation

• Manipulatbn

• Navigation

•Accidental

• Exploration

Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.60: Interactivity Profile for Linda

_ f f l

__:

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

Q Reflection

Interaction

Figure 7.61: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Linda

In addition, the percentage of interactivity types for both Linda (Figure 7.61) and Mark

H. (Figure 7.63) reveal one of the few representations where the Exploration percentage

was lower than that for Involvement. This suggests that the provision of interactions

such as those provided within Real Wild Child will potentially involve the user to a

greater degree. However, the extent to which these also enable effective

communications and a sense of being in control will be addressed in the following

section that considers the comments made by the participants as they worked with this

title.

7-278

100

90 1

80

70 + _ O)

3 c _ _ Q.

5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73

Interactions

Presentation

- Manipulation

• Navigation

•Accidental

• Exploration

Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.62: Interactivity Profile for Mark H.

o Ol

TO *-» C ®

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 ____•

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

O Ref lection

Interaction

Figure 7.63: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for MarkH.

Interactive Experiences

The following comments provide examples of the way in which the 6 participants

responded to Real Wild Child. As with the other titles examined, the observations are

classified according to the themes and sub-themes derived in Chapter 5 and presented in

the same sequence as those illustrated in Figure 5.3 on page 5-127.

7-279

Engagement (Interest)

In this comment, Adam links the ability to explore with generating interest while

acknowledging that it may not help the navigation and control:

[Adam] I think it's just giving me these little explanatory icons, things to make you go and explore. Makes it a little bit more interesting I suppose, but still it doesn't help you navigate very well. Only when you get to that scrolling bar bit [in the 1990s era]. That's pretty good.

The extent to which exploratory activities assist engagement with content material will

be related to whether the encounter is perceived by the user as casual or meaningful.

Communication (Understanding the Purpose)

The following comments illustrate how two of the participants began to respond to the

structure of the application during the first 6 minutes of their encounter:

[Brad] Try this one, I have no idea of what it would do [entering the pub, the 1970s to 1980s era]. It might be a summary of what happened. I had no idea what it would be like. There was no real explicit idea of what was in there. So really you've just got to click on it to find out. Which is a bit daunting. - It's not very clear on anything. It's just pretty much just, very hard to understand what's going on. Oh! I didn't know that was coming up either.

[Linda] I didn't think it was the help screen [Divine Wisdom]. I thought it was some other information or something about what the program is about. It says press Caps Lock to stay in Real Wild Child. I'm thinking how to go back. Ah! Exit! This is going to give m e insight into what the program is about. It's a whole lot of music groups. Sort of like it always has a street, not a street directory but a phone book. Yeah! I'm trying to see where to quit and it wasn't very clear where to go.

One of the issues that these raise is the amount of time a user should be able to explore

an application before being provided with support and orientation, or whether this

should be negotiated between user and program at the commencement of the task?

A different and positive response to understanding the purpose was shown by Josef,

where he expresses relief at a metaphor he can readily interpret after being confronted

with the complex Real Wild Child microworld.

[Josef] This I think is really good. It really stands out and you've got things here [in the Index]. It's like a book. Everybody's used a book before and it's got little marks in there

and you've got different information for each.

Communication (Feedback)

The format of information expected by a user will vary according to their prior

experience and current expectation. In this instance, Brad was looking for contextual

assistance with some of the options being selected:

7-280

[Brad] Well, I wouldn't have changed too much in this, apart from the index, but back at the start, moving a mouse on top of the icon could bring up a tab saying what year you are about to enter. Each link should have either that, telling the person where they have entered.

Interestingly, Brad was actually requesting a facility that existed. Had he pressed the

Space Bar (described in the Divine Wisdom or Help section) this very information

would have been displayed at the top of the screen. On the other hand, the simple

response to an action was considered a positive attribute of Real Wild Child:

[Adam] For exploring I think it was very rewarding. Just clicking anywhere you like you immediately got a reaction, either something would move or there was a sound. I think that was very good. Yeah, very good.

This can be compared to Tiago's reaction to New Zealand Stamps, where his prolonged

engagement provided no reward.

Control (Navigation)

However, Adam did not respond to the navigational options in the same way:

[Adam] Personally I don't like the way they've done it [the navigation]. It's very nice how they've got the icons, the animations and the interactivity but as far as any information gathering, if that was it's purpose, it's not very good because it's not a very easy way of navigating, because the icons don't seem to represent, well they represent very vaguely, what they mean. Which I think makes it a lot harder to navigate but on the other hand, making it more interesting. ... But for someone starting out straight away on it, it's a bit hard to find exactly what you're looking for.

The implication is that there needs to be a compromise between challenge and

distraction. The random acts of animation are perceived as fun, but to what extent do

they interfere with the provision of information? The comments made by Linda on

completion of the engagement provide additional information on the nature of

navigation and the interactive experience:

[Linda] The [navigation] is hard to get used to. You actually have to think about what the mouse does, to have an action happening like that [moving to another screen]... It's very hard to get back to main interface, I'm a little bit picky on that. I like to have an option on every screen to get back to the main interface. If you didn't want to spend a long time figuring it out you'd soon get sick and just leave it and go home!

Control (Choices)

One element to emerge from this study is a level of frustration that occurs when an

impasse appears between application and user. In other words, a communication

breakdown and one where the user may end the encounter rather than being reoriented

by the program and communication re-established.

7-281

[Josef] The thing that is not great is that you can't actually finish. I don't think from what I can see, you can't actually get into the main menu from this. You have to actually click on this [button] and to go from there to get back to the beginning again. It is very bizarre any time in the program. I can't get out of here.

Control (In Control)

An important factor influencing the effectiveness of interactivity is the extent to which

the user is in control:

[Brea] I think this will probably [take me back]. I'm not sure. No it doesn't. No, I just keep going from here. No! I can't seem to go back at all.

This comment was made when Brea was trying to return to the main streetscape from

one of the rooms. By way of explanation, the designers created the rooms in such a way

that navigating to the right (or left) would eventually return the user to the original

room. In one of these rooms, an exit to the main menu was integrated into the interface.

Brea was able to control her navigation, but not to the desired destination. Other

participants also commented on this exit facility:

[Brad] Ah! I found an exit door. Just by looking around. If you didn't know how to look around it would've been hard to get out. And really there was no clear way of finding your way around. It's a bit confusing at the moment.

The way users perceive what is happening on the screen is another factor influencing

the success or otherwise of an interactive engagement and the extent to which they

perceive themselves as being in control. This was illustrated by the comments from

Linda, Adam and Josef:

[Linda] I was actually trying to think of a way to get out of here and it's kind of weird seeing all the different things on here [the screen]. A few of these things are very unexpected. They don't explain what you're doing. You don't know what's going on and if you want to try and exactly find something it's kind of a bit daunting,

[Adam] Very annoying. I have no idea what some of these things are. Look at this, Singles Charts, I had no idea that was Singles Charts [after clicking an object]. I think that means go back. No, it doesn't. It's [the interface] a little bit crowded. It's not taking m e back to the original screen. There's no way for m e to find where the main menu is. It seems to take m e back to the same thing [theprevious screen]. The main menu, I can't find it. Well, it's completely left m e without a way back, I think. I have no idea how to get back.

[Josef] I thought that it would probably take me into another screen, a pop-up screen like the previous ones. I'm not quite sure. I wasn't actually really going where I wanted to. I would think one thing and then something else would really happen. There were some instances when I wanted to leave and go back but I'd go into a different set of options. You'd have to have previously used the program to know when, how to exit it. I wasn't

quite familiar with that.

7-282

The last comment by Josef is particularly pertinent. H e made this comment after 9

minutes of working with Real Wild Child, but had not determined how to effectively

control his navigation back to the main menu. Two related questions emerge from this

observation - how quickly do users expect to reach a level of competency and how can

programs maximise the speed at which users will develop that competency?

Interestingly, each of the participants working with Real Wild Child viewed the help

information, which identified a short-cut back to the main menu, although they did not

interpret how this function might be accessed (by pressing the Space Bar).

Design (Interface)

In continuing to review the observations on the help options, issues associated with the

design and structure of the interface also have an impact on their outcome:

[Mark H.] I think it's good the way it invites you to interact with the media. You discover things that way. It's not over the top, it doesn't give things away straight away. I suppose you look up the top [to the help] which I failed to do at first because I was too busy looking at the bottom of the screen. I think it would be better if instead of having that [help information] up the top, they would have it come out. I think it would be more effective.

In this case Mark H. actually went to the Help display and pressed the Space Bar to get

help, but for some reason he did not associate the appearance of the information at the

top of the screen with this action. Instead, he assumed he had missed the help because

of his attention being focused elsewhere.

In commenting on the overall displays (as illustrated in Figure 7.64 following), Josef

raised the issue of the meaning derived from the interface in terms of control and

navigation:

[Josef] I would have thought that because it [the graphic] had the little speech bubble he might have said something but I guess not, it brought m e to a different screen. That was a lot like a previous screen where you could click on it any time to end it and it brought you to the information page. Scroll down. Still don't know where that [control button] takes me. I think that the Back and Next era [buttons] branch to the same page because that's what happened when I was here before.

.... ^e-Cf

\ foV2 _\ 'A' ";

jr _____ •pr ^« J.^- ' \ V__J

f. » fe': if

' '""1 k___i_L

Figure 7.64: Two Rooms and an Information Screen from Real Wild Child

This is another example of a consistency and communication problem. Josef was

unclear as to the destination of the particular control, and the related information in the

help section appeared unhelpful, unless the user had developed a clear idea of the

microworld structure.

The importance of understanding the design of the product is also evidenced by Linda's

response to the media elements:

[Linda] Very loud. There's a lot of animation and everything going on. The interface is weird [but] I'm getting used to it. I didn't know that you'd have to point to where everything is and go that way to move across. It's different from applications that I'm used to. I'm just not used to the screen moving with me. W h e n I go across like that, it's a different interface.

The effect of an interface that is unfamiliar to the user leads to issues concerning the

integration of consistent elements of control and navigation without compromising the

integrity or creativity of the interface design. The observations made by Brea

demonstrate the difficulties that are faced with addressing individual needs, as she

7-284

expressed both negative and positive aspects relating to the main menu screen (see

Figure 7.57):

[Brea] Whether it's to take you somewhere or maybe someone walks out of the 'Milk Bar' or something like that. Although, he's very distracting, that little skateboarder guy. It's actually quite clever because in a lot of interactive programs sometimes you lose where you are. Like, you start on the main menu and you go here, here and here, and then you forget how to get back. Whereas this looks actually like, visualises so you can see exactly where you are. I think their chicken's very cute!

Design (Multimedia)

In Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat the background sounds were identified as annoying

and distracting, and in this case there is a similar reaction. Josef found the ever-present

sounds annoying, to the extent of appreciating the quiet of the information page.

Although I did not have the information as to whether this was an intentional change of

media stimulus by the designers, it suggests that providing different levels of media-

enriched environments to support encounters may be beneficial to the overall

interactivity.

[Josef] Stopping it was really good because you just clicked on somewhere else besides the thing that was going on and it would stop it and bring [you] to an information page where you got time to, where it was quiet and you could actually think of what you wanted to happen. [In other places] something would just come out and bring with it all this loud sound and youget confused, and there's things running around all over the screen and you can't quite take it in as easily.

Design (Balanced)

To encapsulate the importance of a balanced design, the following comment provides an

insight into the perception of one participant. Brea liked the screen, but not necessarily

the range of unanticipated responses that movement of the pointer elicited.

[Brea] Actually it's very well balanced. The screen told you what they all do and I'm assuming the scroll bar ... Yeah! It's got links, which is very cool. The scroll bar through here, this is really good. ... That's a bit disturbing, you accidentally move the mouse then all of a sudden it bursts into song. So it's all a bit disturbing,

Individual (Relevance)

An issue addressed in this study has been the way in which an application might process

an individual's specific requirements. How a user interprets the function of an

application in the context of information they are seeking could affect the extent to

which they determine it as relevant to their needs:

7-285

[Mark H.] I'd be more interested if, for instance, when I was to come into this 80s thing [era], I was confronted by just sections devoted to specific bands. I think that would be far more informative than an unreal person with two things like this to click on. I think it'd be better to just concentrate on the one whole thing. I think they need to have quite a few more bands than they've actually got. I don't think it's very comprehensive. What I'd really like to be able to do now is to see some video clips of the artists.

This comment again emphasises the need for some form of orientation. If the user was

made aware of the depth of information, their reservations may be minimised or even

eliminated. Had Mark H. located the Index, which provided an alphabetic list of

Australian bands, he may have been satisfied with the many links to textual, audio or

video information.

Learning (Meaningful)

However, different aspects of the design and interface were interpreted positively and as

beneficial to learning activity:

[Brea] Actually I think it's a very effective way to learn about something like music. Because it is so diverse and it classifies it into era, instead of style, which is really clever.

Impressions

With respect to Real Wild Child as an interactive product, the following observations

were made:

[Josef] Well first of all, I figured it was about music (from the cover) but I wasn't expecting something so advanced, where it had the movie clips and the music happening. I think it's really great. I quite enjoyed this. It gives you just normal drawn pictures which make it more interesting. It's very colourful.

[Brea] I was actually very comfortable in the program because I liked the graphics and I enjoyed the way it moved around. It was really different to what I'm used to - Net Search, Word, Powerpoint - which are totally different. This is maximum interactive to me. I've never used a program like it in m y life and I really enjoyed using it.

[Mark H] I don't think it was as easy as it could be. I think the use of multimedia was good. The presentation was dynamic. But at the same time I think the navigation was hindered in a way by that because there's so many things happening and you didn't know what to concentrate on. I think it was engaging, the multimedia made it that way. You felt like you wanted to explore, find out where things were. I did enjoy exploring it.

Josef and Brea both responded to the multimedia elements and the interface, which for

them were a new way of presenting information. The extent to which the array of

interactions and dynamic displays impact on the engagement of the user, in comparison

to their novelty value, is an issue of particular concern in the development of CEL

applications. On the other hand, the comment by Mark H. suggests that the overt

7-286

multimedia displays were hindering and a distraction, even though the screen activity

prompted exploration.

Summary

This section has focused on the presentation and discussion of the results recorded from

the 6 participants w h o worked through Real Wild Child, and were reported in terms of

content audit trails, interactive profiles and interactive observations.

The audit trails, which mapped the major content sections accessed by participants,

were consistent with those generated from the other titles. The exception was that some

of the participants were more active in moving between the major content areas - in this

case eras of Australian popular music. Based on observing their interactions and the

comments they provided, it would appear the dynamic nature of the interface and the

variety of interactions prompted the participants to access the content more

comprehensively.

This outcome was reflected in the interactive profiles, which for two of the participants

revealed more involvement than exploration. With Real Wild Child, it appeared that

participants were also able to achieve an interactive balance incorporating a wider range

of interactions (eg. Figure 7.60 Figure 7.62). While this may have been the result of the

interactive options provided, it reinforces the possibility that using such profiles for

individual users will provide information to facilitate design that in turn will address the

needs of a wider audience.

As with the comments presented in the other sections, the observations made by

participants reveal the extent to which the complex relationship between interface and

control affects engagement and communication. With Real Wild Child specifically,

participants accessed sections (such as Help) but did not assimilate the necessary

information to take advantage of the support provided. The result of this was, at times, a

negative response by the participant to the product.

The following section examines the responses generated by participants as they worked

with Voodoo Lounge, the final title considered in this study and the second of the

music-oriented products.

7-287

TITLE 7: VOODOO LOUNGE

About this Title

Produced by Virgin (1995), this title uses an adventure-game metaphor in which the

user must explore a number of rooms to receive feedback or view various images of a

Rolling Stones performance or interviews with members of the group. It uses what

might be termed an edutainment strategy, where detailed information about this band is

integrated within the environment, and is aimed at adult or young adult audiences.

Figure 7.65: Voodoo Lounge

The Voodoo Lounge environments is structured in such a way that users can "meet" a

range of people and many of these encounters are designed to provide information on

the layout and functionality of the two levels of the lounge. A map was also available to

assist navigation and enable rapid transfer from one location to another.

Interactive Constructs

The interactions within Voodoo Lounge primarily focus on the user navigating through

the various rooms and interacting with the people or objects found in those locations.

The essential interactions used are illustrated in Table 7.10 following.

7-

Interactivitv

Clickable-Objects

Hyperlink

Roll-Overs

Automatic Navigation

Keyboard Shortcuts

Description

User can click on a display object to activate specific responses User can link to another location by clicking on a word or object. Responds when user positions pointer over object on display

Example

Click on people to get a verbal response (talking) Link from one room to another using the Map

The display animates as a result of the position of the pointer Key combinations to navigate through the application

Objects within rooms Navigational indicators in rooms In each of the rooms, the user can loop through 360° Shift-M activates the Map

Table 7.10: Interactive Options in Voodoo Lounge

Audit Trails

To illustrate the areas of the environment accessed by the 6 participants w h o worked

with Voodoo Lounge, the content audit trails for Jon (Figure 7.66) and Trevor (Figure

7.67) are shown. In particular, two features emerge from these audit trails. First is the

relatively short duration in each activity; as the participants tended to jump between one

action and another rather than focusing on a specific area. Second, neither Jon nor

Trevor found their way to the downstairs or lower level, and only one of the six

participants (Surian) was able to locate and visit that area. This is an interesting

observation on the use of realistic metaphors, such as the virtual environment employed

here. Participants were able to navigate successfully, but few were oriented to the three-

dimensional spaces portrayed.

Figure 7.66: Content Audit Trail for Jon

7-289

Introduction Entry Foyer Map

Bar Lounge Bar VIP Card Voodoo Raver Skeletons

Video W&H Mixing Board Aley Ex*

Stairs (Up.Down 1 Main Lounge Men's Room Women's Room Baron's Lounge Courtyard Stage Tunnel Veranda VP Lounge

1 1 1

1 1 i l l r I I m I

• in _j

IB 1 1 • 1 1 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes

INTERACTIVITY: •Presentation ^Navigation •Exploration •involvement ^Manipulation •Accidental [ Reflection

Figure 7.67: Content Audit Trail for Trevor

Interactive Profiles

The interactive profiles for Jon (Figure 7.68) and Trevor (Figure 7.70) demonstrate

contrasting levels of interactivity. Whereas Jon was not able to achieve a balance during

his time working with the application, he was also more reflective, whereas Trevor was

able to achieve a balance between exploration, involvement and manipulation.

100

Presentation Navigation Exploration Involvement

• Manipulation Accidental Reflection

Figure 7.68: Interactivity Profile for Jon

o D)

ra c o _ o Q.

Interaction

• Presentation

• Navigation

• Exploration

• Involvement

• Manipulation

• Accidental

• Reflection

Figure 7.69: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Jon

This difference in the way Jon and Trevor worked through the application is also

revealed in the cumulative percentage of interactive types (Figure 7.69 and Figure 7.71).

From the perspective of both design and useability, the variable effects of one

environment on different users reiterates the importance of strategies that m a y cater for

the individual characteristics of the user.

ra 4-1

C -u

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93

Interactions

Presentation

• Manipulation

- Navigation

• Accidental

• Exploration

Reflection

• Involvement

Figure 7.70: Interactivity Profile for Trevor

7-291

Figure 7.71: Cumulative Percentage by Interactivity Type for Trevor

Interactive Experiences

The following examples represent selections from the responses made by participants

while working with Voodoo Lounge. The responses are presented using the themes and

sub-themes derived in Chapter 5, and structured in Figure 5.3 on page 5-127.

Engagement (Manipulation)

The manipulation of content through interactivity (emphasised by Aldrich et al, 1998)

was recorded infrequently with the total group of participants in this study. However,

with this particular title, manipulation was more evident:

[Jon] This is all right, you can change different songs. Volume control, that's all right. It's different. W h e n you have a C D player and you just skip along, well that's what I'd expect from that, but it just gives the name and then if you want that song you click on the name.

It's all right in a way but it's hard.

Jon was comfortable with the ability to manipulate certain aspects of the environment,

but nevertheless restricted in some way, as the operations were inconsistent with his

prior experience.

In Trevor's situation, the engagement and manipulation occurred after he had "drunk"

one of the drinks from the bar and was transported to the Voodoo Raver where songs,

animations and images could be manipulated. As he went through an almost

simultaneous process of discovery and manipulation, Trevor expressed his delight at

what he could achieve:

7-292

[Trevor] Well, that wasn't at all what I was expecting to happen. I'm supposing that each of these little studs around the picture frame is a button, but the cursor doesn't change so that's a bit of a problem. It's anyone's guess as to what they mean. I suppose these three or four are songs. These are something to do with program control. ... W o w ! O K , so now I'm thinking that if I press this ellipse on the Rolling Stones album I'll most probably hear some spun out colours. N o w I'm guessing that all of these are little interactive buttons that will give m e a different effect here on this spun out, drugged out, video clip. Looks like I'm right. N o w I'm starting to wonder if there's anything I can do to change this background display. Maybe one of these, or it could be one of these. These ones look like they might be the go ... so I'll try that and see if I can change the background, [thumbs up]. I better do something with these characters. I'm going to put on a different song now. I selected this dude with the blue pants on and I'm expecting that he's going to appear - and he does!

It is this combination of engagement, through control and manipulation, that generates

the magic of the technology that I believe is representative of its promise. Enabling and

maintaining similar levels of interest within all different forms of CEL remains one of

the major challenges for designers of educational software.

Engagement (Motivation)

Participants were selected to contribute to the study to provide insight into interactive

constructs. However, other issues also emerged.

[Jonathon] I find it a bit hard to understand what they're saying. Even though they're trying to capture the Rolling Stones image by what they're saying, it doesn't really appeal to m e because I don't really like the Rolling Stones.

This highlights what I perceive to be an important issue of motivation and the use of

CEL applications. In this case Jon is not particularly interested in the topic, and I have

observed a similar response with many students in a normal classroom environment. So

if a learner is assigned a CEL activity but is not currently interested or focused on the

topic, what strategies could be integrated within that application to generate interest,

motivation and engagement?

Communication (Conversation)

The notion of talking with a computer through some form of natural language is

typically the realm of computer scientists. However, with the virtual environment both

Trevor and Leona were comfortable with the potential of conducting some form of

dialogue with the characters:

[Trevor] I suppose the idea would be to go and talk to one of the Rolling Stones who are in here, maybe they can tell me. So we'll go and talk to Keith [Richards]. Only you can't! That's no good. It doesn't provide buttons and things that you can use. Obviously, this 'X' [the main cursor] means that you can talk to these various people.

7-293

[Leona] Well, the talk symbol... I'll talk to someone. I'll click here and hear what he has to say. I don't think I'll be able to talk back to this guy. See that doesn't work, now I'm wondering why that little symbol comes up! It looks like a talk [symbol], the only other symbol is this eye symbol.

However, the application was not programmed to respond purposefully when characters

were selected; instead, they would make identical responses when "spoken to" (by

clicking on their image with the cursor).

Communication (Understand Purpose)

Consistent with the other titles considered in this study, participants working with

Voodoo Lounge also expressed issues associated with understanding the overall purpose

and function of the application:

[Matt] It's quite obscure - the links to click on objects are really hard to find and the only way you know you're on one is the cursor changes and the eye lights up. N o symbolism at all to say that it would go back a step. Going through door is obvious - into another room. The Bar has nothing to do with music at all. Clicking on a drink isn't really an appropriate object to click on to get music. And then there was another drink on the bar, it didn't really do much except turn all the graphics into skeletons which I found even more obscure. Really the only way to find stuff is to blunder around and stumble across it. N o real clues as to where it's leading you.

Is there some indication here of what might be called "designer indulgence", where the

producers have implemented paths or presentations because of technical know-how

rather than to support user understanding and engagement. In this 'virtual' environment

the concept of what controls provides and do not provide is well illustrated. Matt does

not have a problem with the navigation or selection of objects, but is unable to orient

himself to the purpose or content of the title. His exploration was satisfactory, but he

expressed a need to be able to locate objects and access the content purposefully.

In a similar fashion Leone was able to interpret her surroundings and the operation of

controls, but not the reason for being in a particular location:

[Leona] You can turn around and look by just moving your mouse to the side of the page. You can also talk to the people if you feel like it, when these symbols come up. You can walk into other rooms, go in there. Well ... it's very realistic. The people are very realistic. It's just strange! I don't exactly understand the purpose of this program.

Communication (Two-Way)

Throughout the Voodoo Lounge, in addition to the words spoken by the characters, a

background voice offered comments such as "A wise man knows when to talk and

7-294

when to listen", which were designed to provide cues for the user. However, for

Jonathon at least, there was a sense of frustration as these cues were not processed as

being relevant to the interactions:

[Jonathon] M y guess is that they'll probably have other video clips throughout the different levels.... I don't know. I've never played this before, but that would be m y perception. I think they're trying to add some moral values in this as well, with the background [words].

The tone of Jonathon's voice almost suggested that there was a triviality in the way the

material was presented. He was able to pick up that words were being spoken, but they

had little meaning, as he had not linked the spoken cues with the navigation and

exploration options. In contrast, Trevor heard the words "Have you found what you're

looking for" but was not able to associate them with his understanding of the title:

[Trevor] No, I don't know what I'm really supposed to be looking for, in response to what that guy just said. I thought we are just here to have some fun. I didn't realise this was meant to be a quest.

In another example of the need for two-way communication, Emma had understood the

environment and was prepared to wait for the system to respond, but was also expecting

the program to establish some form of dialogue or action.

[Emma] Is this the introductory screen? Well that's making me feel dizzy. I just moved m y mouse, the cursor, over the screen. ... I don't really know what's going on actually. It's just a scene with heaps of people sitting in a bar, it looks like rock stars. I'm waiting for something to happen, it doesn't give m e any indications of what I'm supposed to be doing here. I just keep waiting I guess until something happens.

Control (Navigation)

Unlike a real world environment, where our spatial orientation generally allows us to

find our way back to a room w e were in, the same cannot be said for the virtual worlds

presented in a digital environment:

[Surian] They had the map, I suppose that would help, but I wasn't sure where I was starting from. I didn't know exactly where each building was, or each room but [the map] would be helpful if I tried it a few more times and got the hang of it. The eye icon is good because it tells you can go into certain rooms.

[Emma] That wasn't very clear, though that's what I was supposed to be doing. Right, back to where I started. I guess if you just move your mouse in the direction you want to go, but it just takes you around in a circle. You can't go up or down.

This latter response provides another example of the control. Once the user has some

idea of the environment, they feel more comfortable about exploring, and will test out

7-295

possibilities. In this instance however, E m m a appeared to have an expectation that some

vertical as well as horizontal navigation would be possible.

The extent to which a navigational interaction leads you to an expected destination is an

additional issue that was noted. In responding to the role luck had played in locating the

answer to the search task, Trevor made the following observation:

[Trevor] I'd say there would have been [an element of luck] because I wasn't expecting to find that. I was expecting maybe to go down the hall into another room or something like that but it just seemed to be a really illogical jump to that [the mixing room]. I couldn't actually see the jukebox or anything like that from where I was [in the Bar].

Here Trevor clearly expressed a need for a cue to support his navigation. In this

particular instance, without having found the map, he had no indication as to the

whereabouts or contents of the various rooms.

Control (In Control)

As indicated previously, Trevor was animated and involved throughout his contact with

Voodoo Lounge, but made an observation that I believe has significant impact on

understanding the success of CEL:

[Trevor] It was a bit confusing ... you would click on something and it wouldn't do what you were expecting it to. W h e n I went out the doorway into the garbage area I saw the door there and I thought "I'll go back into the Voodoo Lounge or the hall that leads to the Voodoo Lounge", because it had an Exit sign over it. I thought that was the Exit from the inside because I'd just come out of there, but it actually exited the whole program so that was a bit confusing. I felt like I was in control, but half the time I didn't know what I was controlling - that's the thing.

The extent to which he was controlling, but not in control, of the interactive process

may be critical to better understanding issues of learner and program control. It also

supports Rose's (1999) critique of the way in which concepts of control have been

inappropriately applied to interactivity within CEL environments.

A contrasting view of control is seen with Emma's observation. None of the interface,

metaphor or controls enticed her into the range of material available for viewing.

[Emma] I wonder if I click on people whether it takes me to another screen or something, I don't know. A m I allowed to click on things? I was more expecting to be taken to another screen, but I was expecting something to happen if I clicked it. So it's just more voice, the message that you get back. I'm just trying to click on the person, but for some reason he's not making any sounds. Oh! It looks like the people who are going to make sounds get this eye image up N o w I'm through to another area, I don't even know who that person was though. Well, I moved the cursor in front of the door that big eye image came up again. I guess it's my'prompt to take m e through to another screen.

7-296

The prolonged process of determining the function of the cursor and navigation, from

her tone of voice and comments, suggested that she was not in a position to effectively

control the outcomes of her interactions. Interestingly, the function of the icons and the

navigation were fully explained in the accompanying booklet. However neither E m m a

nor the other participants used this information source.

Control (Branching)

The order in which material is seen and accessed is critical to the development of

understanding of the environment in which users are placed. In the following example,

Jonathon had encountered the Map, and had some familiarity with the rooms within the

Voodoo Lounge, and allowed him to extract meaning from the Mixing Room, which

Trevor had been unable to do:

[Jonathon] Yes, for different places you can change different songs, at least I think that's what you can do. You can change different songs for each of the different levels wherever you want to go. I think you've only got about three different songs to choose from, but if I click on Dance Floor and I want Love is So Strong then if I go to the Dance Floor that song

will be on. I think that's what will happen.

Based on Jonathon's navigation, the map referring to the different levels and rooms was

found prior to his visiting the Mixing Room, and therefore the references to other rooms

on the mixing device made sense. If he had not followed this sequence and found the

map (as was the case with the other participants), then the references to songs and

rooms may have not been interpreted in terms of the mixer's functionality.

Design (Interface)

The way users perceive the information being presented is a key to their effective

interaction with that content, as demonstrated by the following comments from Matt

and Jonathon:

[Matt] I'm not sure if this X with eye means that I can't go there or they're the only places I

can go. It's a bit obscure.

[Jonathon] All it does [the cursor] is show you that you go in to find something. All it has is a cross with an eye in it, which now I know symbolises that that's a place I can go. When I first saw that [the eye cursor], I thought it meant you can't go there or something like that

...it's pretty funny.

7-297

The design of the cursor icon (an eye over a red cross), which enabled users to navigate

between rooms, was the cause, at least initially, for some interference with effective

interaction and navigation.

Throughout this study, many of the participants indicated a desire for a level of

consistency between the digital and the real world environments. The interpretation by

Emma (as well as Trevor's earlier comment) that the Exit light would lead them back to

the lounge resulted in a level of frustration:

[Emma] Well, it's giving me a of list of producers and people who worked on it [the Voodoo Lounge title]. End of program. OK, now what?

The use of a realistic Exit sign did not necessarily convey to Emma that it was an option

to leave the program. The confusion resulted because these participants had not

determined their location within the virtual environment, and therefore the context of

controls within the interface becomes significant.

Design (Multimedia)

As with the other titles examined, those that incorporated a range of background sounds

were often criticised by participants, as was the case with the characters in the lounge:

[Jonathon] But when they try and involve this type of stuff [animations] it annoys me because it's just repetitive, just little movements. Like this guy does that [moves] and then goes back to normal and does the same thing 10 seconds later, 2 seconds later.

Individual (Relevance)

Despite his enthusiasm for the material presented in Voodoo Lounge, Trevor was also

expansive in his reaction to the application, illustrating the ways in which the individual

experience can be affected:

[Trevor] Well it looked good, but it just seemed there was going to be a lot more to it than there was. Maybe I'd find more if I explored around a bit more, but I don't think so. It wasn't really very intuitive, with the doors and things like that. At least two doors that I went through led m e to that jukebox [Mixing Room] which didn't do very much. You could turn the volume up and change the song, but you could only choose out of four songs. Then there was that picture frame which had that psychedelic stuff, and for something that was meant to be really trippy and psychedelic, it wasn't really all that spectacular. The part that I liked was when you went to the bar and you could choose your drink - if you drank that steaming one everyone turned into a skeleton, I thought that one was really cool, but there

wasn't enough of that kind of stuff

Although he was able to manipulate the controls in the Voodoo Raver (the psychedelic

stuff), the novelty appeared to wear off after further exploration and involvement with

7-298

the product. Maintaining an individual's interest is paramount to achieving relevance in

terms of content, interpretation and meaning.

Impressions

The following observations illustrate the overall impressions that selected participants

gained after working with Noodoo Lounge:

[Emma] I found that once I knew when the eye [cursor] came up it was going to take me through to something else, it took m e a while to figure that out though, I suppose it was easy to navigate. You've got to do a lot of searching around to get to the right place. There was no text in it at all apart from at the end. N o instructions, and the content, I didn't get anything out of the content. I couldn't find the answer to that question [the search task]. A m I supposed to be learning something from this? If I was supposed to learn, I didn't get the gist. What's the aim of it? I mean the interactive side of it? It's all quite fun trying to find places to go but I didn't find it very effective at all, didn't learn anything from it. It didn't give m e any information really except for a few rock stars sitting there saying a few comments and I clicked on them and that's all I got out of it. I think something at the beginning to say what the aim of the product was, because there was nothing to show what sort of information I was looking for or how to go about getting it. I mean maybe that's part of the learning side of it, h o w to get from one place to the next but I think something at the beginning to say what it's about might have helped a little bit.

Emma's comments provide a useful insight into this title, suggesting that users need to

learn the interface before they can proceed to the various learning activities. It also

clearly reinforces the notion that careful thought must be given by producers as to what

the title is designed to do, where it is to be used and by whom. The navigational

elements were also perceived as important to the overall application:

[Jonathon] Maybe they could have an up and down bit where you could look up at the roof and look down, that would be a good option. But the scrolling around [navigating around a room] I think it's good because most of the time [with other applications] you have an arrow pointing that way or back and forth and you have to click that to turn around. But with this, you just have to do that [position the cursor to move].

If a virtual environment is to be implemented, how realistic must it be? Here Jonathon

identified the advantage of automatic scrolling compared to arrows indicating left, right

or up, down. For some participants, the provision of visible directional arrows may have

been useful, as they did not realise how to navigate between rooms. Trevor also

commented on his reaction, including disappointment, with his interactive experience:

[Trevor] A lot of it was just window dressing, like the buttons around that picture frame. They didn't do very much, they just changed the picture spinning thing, that wasn't very good. But I think it would have been better if you actually could go and interactively speak, well not actually speak, to each of the people in the Voodoo Lounge and they would have a beer and say something like 'Caw! Governor! What a good party!' or something like that. I thought it was going to be really good when I started it but then I quickly decided that it

was very bad.

7-299

Summary

The discussion in this section focused on Voodoo Lounge, the 7th title used for

investigating the way people work with interactive constructs. A s with the other titles,

the audit trails, interactive profiles and interactive experiences of the six participants

provided insights into the effectiveness of interactive environments.

While the audit trails generated from the other titles demonstrated a range of content

and topic access, those for Voodoo Lounge were somewhat different as one whole level

was not located by five of the participants. This group of people was not able to

effectively orient themselves within the virtual environment, as only one participant

(Surian) was able to locate this downstairs area.

The interactive profiles tended to be consistent with the trends generated by observation

of participants working with the other titles, but revealed a degree of variation between

the participants. Whereas some achieved a balance between use of the different

interactive constructs, others appeared to be confounded by the environment and

experienced only limited involvement, as demonstrated by a high level of reflection.

The comments generated as the participants worked through Voodoo Lounge provided

valuable insights into the way people interpret virtual environments. In this instance, the

inability to effectively navigate from one location to another suggested that similar

environments for C E L must be carefully designed to ensure that the learning is not

jeopardised by forms of interactive interference.

The following section provides a conclusion to this complete chapter, drawing together

the major themes and outcomes that resulted from 46 participants working with the

interactivity provided within 7 different titles.

7-300

CONCLUSION

This chapter provided a comprehensive assessment of the way in which 46 of the

participants w h o contributed to the overall study worked with a set of 7 C D - R O M titles.

To examine the way in which the participants worked with these interactive constructs,

each of the video sequences for each participant was examined in detail and two sets of

data extracted. The first identified the content area of the title being accessed, the

associated interactivity being undertaken and the time taken to complete that interaction

and the second the transcription of the articulated responses of the participants. The

purpose of this concluding section is to draw together the themes that emerged from this

component of the research. Over the course of the discussion of the previous seven

sections, four specific areas were covered with respect to each of the titles.

First, an overview for each title was provided including an explanation of the major

interactive components adopted for navigation and control of the interface. Second, an

audit trail illustrating the content areas accessed by each participant during their

interaction with the content was produced. Third, an interactive profile was created to

provide a representation of a participant's interactivity over time and fourth, the extracts

of the transcribed comments were analysed with respect to the themes of interactivity

derived in Chapter 5. The following sections review each of these considerations and, as

a result of the way in which these participants worked with interactivity, provide a

context for assessing the implications for better understanding interactivity through a

series of challenges.

The Seven Titles

The process of collecting this data involved observing the participants as they worked

through the different titles, including repeated viewing of the video recordings, in order

to confirm the navigation and interaction they undertook. This provided m e with 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 those titles.

7-301

What became evident, and is supported by the observations relating to 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, the

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. In the current environment people are

making extensive use of the internet for both human-human communication and

information retrieval. In this context there is a demand for quick access and retrieval. If

learners are assigned an interactive title to work through, comparable to those examined

in this study, will they have the time to develop as quick an understanding of its

metaphor as they can with a book? It is likely that there will be substantial and sustained

demand for rapid access and quick but meaningful responses. A desirable goal is to

continue working towards making these forms of titles more intuitive, and therefore

more accessible, to the user.

A second issue to emerge from the structure of the titles was what I have termed

interactive interference, those elements of the human-computer relationship that

impede, or potentially impede, the learning process. For example, in a number of titles

participants referred to the distraction caused by background sounds or program-

controlled animations. Participants also frequently identified the themes of

communication, control and design as contributing to disruption of their interactivity,

consistent with the observations of Plowman (1996a). Producers of C E L products

should therefore focus on enhancing existing design procedures to create an interface

and accompanying interactions that minimise the potential of interference with the

user's interactivity, thereby maximising the opportunity for communication,

engagement, control and subsequent learning.

Content Audit Trails

The use of audit trails to represent progress through an application has been undertaken

by only a few researchers (eg. Misanchuk & Schwier, 1992; Andris & Stueber, 1994;

Fritze & McNaught, 1996). For this study, the audit trail concept was enhanced to

illustrate both the topics accessed by the participants in addition to the different

interactions being undertaken during that access.

I consider the significant outcome from these audit trails is the way in which the data

both confirms and contradicts the theoretical positions of learning and interactivity. In

terms of confirmation, the variation in audit trails substantiates the claim that C E L

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 transcribed comments, this individualisation did not convert into meaning,

thereby contradicting the assertion that such individual experiences will also enable

engagement and meaning. Based on these observations, I perceive an opportunity for

production teams to consider the potential of negotiation between user and application,

where the application is a remote representation of the designer's intent for an

interactive learning environment.

Profiles of Interactivity

This component of the research study specifically examined the phenomenon of

interactivity from the perspective of the user, compared to external measures such as

taxonomies (eg. Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993) or scores (eg. Stoupe, 1998). To provide

a means to represent this phenomenon, I recorded the different interactions made by

each participant and expressed these as a percentage of the total interactivity that was

being undertaken at any one time (see Appendix D.4 for sample data).

100

O)

3 c a> u _ a.

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93

Interactions

Presentation Navigation Exploration Involvement Manipulation •Accidental

Figure 7.72: Sample Interactivity Profile

7-303

This process enabled m e to generate an interactive profile for each participant using the

format shown in Figure 7.72. For the purposes of this discussion, I have removed the

Reflective component of the interactions recorded to present only the data relevant to

the on-task interactions.

Over the 95 interactions recorded, the participant shown in Figure 7.72 achieved what I

term interactive balance after some 30 interactions, where the interactive elements

converged to a similar and continuous level (in this case between 2 0 % and 2 5 % ) . Based

on the evolving analysis of interactivity, I believe this form of measure is consistent

with the taxonomy of Aldrich at al (1998) as it integrates both overt physical

interactions as well as those where the participant is either involved with or

manipulating the content. This could not have been determined without the observation

and transcribed comments.

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. This would also be indicative of the user

working effectively with the product. Products that did not achieve a balance (possibly

consistent with Norman's (1986) gulfs of execution and evaluation) might need to

undergo some form of interactive adjustment.

Interactive Experiences

The final element of the analysis focused on the comments made by participants as they

worked with the various titles. As detailed in the previous sections, these observations

were classified into the themes and sub-themes that the same participants had indicated

for their expectations of interactivity, as described in Chapter 5.

From examining the content of each of the transcribed comments, the significant

outcome for m e was again a seeming parallel confirmation and contradiction of the

theoretical foundations of interactivity. Participants were quite capable of using the

interactive devices provided, regardless of the title or format of the interface, and this is

consistent with the perceived advantages of learners having control over C E L

environments. However, based on what was said, the participants were not necessarily

7-304

in control, and any consequential engagement with the content material tended to be

limited, which may also relate to the notion of interference.

Addressing the Questions

In the preceding sections addressing each title, a number of questions were raised as a

result of the participants' comments on their interactive experience. To address each of

these is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, given that this study involved an

investigation of interactivity, a foundational element of CEL, a c o m m o n element

emerging from these questions that can be addressed. What this complex integration of

audit trail, profile and experience demonstrated is 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 to be created in such a way that it has a responsibility

for maintaining the communication with the user - thereby supporting the creation of

truly interactive environments. In this context, the relationship between human and

computer might 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 CEL.

Summary

Based on the data recorded from this group of participants, it is 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. The critical findings from this analysis can be summarised

according to five challenges identified in this conclusion:

• Interference - the challenge to avoid design and interaction characteristics that

might potentially interfere with communication and engagement.

• Balance and Time - the challenge to create CEL products that enable the learner

to achieve a balance between the interactive constructs offered and to achieve

m a x i m u m extraction of meaning from the time available.

• In Control - the challenge to provide environments where the learner is in

control, not just controlling.

7-305

• Negotiation - the challenge to structure C E L applications such that learners can

negotiate their preferred learning experience with the designer.

• Encounters - the challenge to create CEL environments that simulate the

encounters that might be expected in human-human communication.

The final chapter draws together the theoretical attributes of interactivity (Chapters 1, 2

and 3) with the findings based on the interactive expectations (Chapters 5), the links

between interactivity and learning (Chapter 6) and the affects of working with

interactivity (Chapter 7). In the final analysis, it will be developing a more

comprehensive understanding of the interactive phenomenon that will lead to C E L

products working better (Reeves, 1999).

CHAPTER 8:

INTERACTIVITY ON STAGE

INTRODUCTION

I chose the title for this final chapter for two reasons. First, it provides a metaphor for

the complete study, which was to audition interactivity and gauge its performance

through the eyes of its intended audience. Second, the outcomes from the research

process suggest a range of design strategies, one of which is the concept of the learner

as actor, and consistent with the analogy of interactivity as a component of

performance.

More specifically, this chapter integrates the theoretical framework of interactivity

developed throughout Chapters 1, 2 and 3 with the research outcomes from each of the

three procedures documented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. To achieve this, the discussion is

presented in two major parts. The first section initially reviews the purpose of this

study, which was to develop and enhance our current understanding of the phenomenon

of interactivity in the context of Computer-Enhanced Learning (CEL) environments.

This is followed by an appraisal of the three research questions posed and the data that

was generated by the research procedures associated with each of those questions. This

review provides a framework for presenting a statement to articulate the fundamental

outcome of the research, which identifies the need for expanded and alternative

approaches to the way interactivity is designed and implemented within computer-based

environments,

Given this requirement, the second part of the chapter focuses on six major issues

derived from the research, and proposes strategies for each outcome to enhance and

extend current practice in the design and development of educational software. In brief,

these issues can be expressed as:

• assessing the nature of interactive interference, where interactive constructs

have the potential to disrupt continuity;

• using the concept of interactive balance as a means to determine when users

have reached a state of engagement;

• creating an environment in which the user is in control of, compared to

controlling, the interactivity within an application;

• introducing an option for negotiation, where both user and designer (through the

application) establish communication;

• conceptualising the relationship between learner and designer as a series of

encounters, through which negotiation might be facilitated; and

• positioning the learner as actor within an interactive performance to gain

m a x i m u m benefit from the associated encounters.

Overall, I believe this analysis provides a context for achieving what Reeves (1999)

exhorted, and that is to make C E L work better.

THE PHENOMENON OF INTERACTIVITY

The Research Purpose

The terms interactive and interactivity have been consistently used to described C E L in

such a way to imply that learning benefits will accrue because of those interactions

embedded in the product. However, based on m y o w n experience with working in the

field of C E L , and the research literature that identified interactivity as a concept

difficult to define and in need of research, I undertook this study to investigate

interactivity as a phenomenon and construct in its own right.

The general field of computer-based education has consistently been subject to

commentary that has questioned the overall effectiveness of the technology. If w e can

develop a better understanding of h o w people interpret the different interactive

constructs provided in C E L applications, w e will be in a better position to apply its

characteristics to these environments.

This study therefore set out to examine interactivity from the user's perspective,

focusing on their expectations of interactivity in the context of C E L environments, the

8-308

extent to which they linked specific instances of interactivity with support of learning

and the ways in which they worked with interactive products. This was achieved using a

qualitative research methodology that, through survey of 70 participants and

observation of 46 participants, assessed their responses to, and activities with, the

phenomenon of interactivity.

The Research Rationale

The value of the qualitative method is that it is appropriate for investigating diffuse

phenomena, such as the case of interactivity and its effect on learning in C E L

environments. A s detailed in the following review, the results from this study provided

a set of data which, on interpretation, provided the means by which the issues identified

could be addressed in the context of strategies for C E L design and development.

This study was structured to investigate interactivity from three different perspectives,

based on the literature review presented in Chapters 1,2 and 3 respectively. The

participants w h o contributed to the study were enrolled in a tertiary program studying

interactive multimedia, and based on the purposive sampling strategy, were considered

to have the appropriate characteristics for contributing the data used in the study.

Research Question 1

In the first chapter I examined the promise of interactivity in the context of C E L and

presented the argument that while interactivity had been well documented as a

beneficial feature of C E L environments, it had not consistently achieved its promise of

supporting effective learning. To address this issue, I posed the following question:

What expectations do people have from interactive learning

environments?

The aim of this question was to determine the links between the promised outcomes of

interactivity and the expectations of people w h o would be working with either the

design, development or use of this technology.

To address this question, I asked participants to respond to three questions concerning

the relationship between interactivity, software and learning. A s reported in Chapter 5,

the analysis of the responses I undertook, supported by the N U D * I S T software, enabled

8-309

m e to create a structure of themes and sub-themes with which the participants had

associated interactivity.

Overall, the expectations of interactivity identified by the participants (engagement,

communication, control, design, the individual and learning) were consistent with the

conditions of interactivity (Chapter 2) and the practice of interactivity (Chapter 3).

However, as the promise of effective learning from interactive courseware continues to

be debated, the expectations expressed by this group of participants suggested that the

interactivity being presented within C E L applications was not often consistent with the

expectations of potential users.

Research Question 2

In the second chapter I focused on the conditions of interactivity - the varied ways in

which interactivity has been considered within the learning field as well as C E L

environments. Given that interactivity and learning are perceived as being closely

linked, I posed the following question:

In what ways are interactive elements considered to impact on

the learning process?

The purpose of this question was to examine the ways participants associated the varied

constructs of interactivity with support of the learning process.

To address this question I derived a set of 66 examples of interactivity that were linked

to the two dimensions of control (program and learner). The participants were asked to

assign each of these statements to one of four dimensions (learner control/supports

learning, program control/supports learning, learner control/hinders learning and

program control/hinders learning).

For analysis of the data I developed a metric by which the trends from the assignment of

examples could be graphically represented. Assessment of this representation

demonstrated that, when considered as a group, the examples of interactivity were

predominantly rated in one of the Support Learning dimensions. However, when I

examined representations by gender or experience, a greater variation was evident, with

an increased proportion of the interactivity examples being allocated towards one of the

Hinder Learning dimensions. W h e n individual examples of interactivity were

8-310

considered, the variation in allocation between the four dimensions was even more

pronounced, as the participants' response was subject to even more variation.

The major outcome from this section of the study was that interactive elements were not

perceived to impact on the learning process consistently, in some cases supporting

learning and in others hindering that process. The implications for the design of C E L is

that interactive strategies must be more carefully scrutinised, not so much in terms of

the general abilities of a target audience, but in the way individuals within that audience

might interpret and adapt to the interactions presented.

Research Question 3

The final assessment of interactivity I undertook was in terms of its practice, the way

people have come to understand, interpret and use interactivity, as discussed in the third

chapter. The research into C E L has generally addressed the manipulation of variables,

such as learner control, learning styles or instructional strategy, and their impact on

learning. However, only a few of these studies have investigated the concept of the

interactive experience.

I therefore set out to examine how the interactions employed within computer-based

environments would impact on the user and, based on those observations, determine

strategies by which learning and computer-based interactivity might be better

understood. Rather than employing objective measures of interactivity, I undertook to

assess interactivity from the subjective experience of the users, which provided the

context for the third research question:

How do elements of interactivity affect product useability and

effectiveness?

To develop a response to this question, I implemented a comprehensive observational

procedure, recording the interactions and spoken observations on videotape, in which 46

participants worked through one of seven interactive multimedia software products,

selected for their diversity in interactive constructs and presentation style. As detailed in

Chapter 7, the data generated through this procedure enabled m e to prepare, for each

participant, representations of content audit trails and interactive profiles as well as

transcriptions of their interactive experiences with those titles.

8-311

From the analysis of this data, it was evident that the various interactive devices

employed in C E L products affect useability and effectiveness in both positive and

negative ways. Based on this outcome, a series of challenges were identified by which

designers might achieve more effective results.

Statement of Outcome

In a nutshell, the outcomes from this research process address three items:

1 The theoretical framework for interactivity demonstrates its beneficial

characteristics for learning, especially in the context of CEL,

2. The participants from this study had expectations of interactivity that were

consistent with these theoretical benefits, but

3. The participants' reaction to individual examples of interactivity and their

experience working with exemplar titles did not demonstrate a consistent match

between the theory and practice of interactivity.

To resolve this discrepancy requires a better understanding of the computer-based

interactive environment. The means by which designers might take advantage of this are

considered in terms of the six issues presented in the following sections.

INTERFERENCE AND INTERACTIVITY

In developing the theoretical framework by which interactivity has come to be

understood, the potential of narrative structures was identified as a means by which

C E L applications could provide a more communicative environment for the learner

(Plowman, 1996a). However, Plowman (1996a) also suggested that an issue with this

potential was that the narrative could be disrupted by the very element supposed to

enhance computer-based learning - interactivity. In contrast, Hilf (1996) believed

interactivity was the factor that enhanced narrative, as it was the user w h o was able to

control those interactions. From the outcomes of this study, especially those derived in

Chapters 6 and 7, it is apparent that certain attributes of the interactive environment do

contribute to this disruption or interference by distracting the user as they work towards

interpreting the content material. This is manifested through interactivity hindering or

disrupting the learning or information seeking experience.

8-312

This was illustrated in the specific responses made by participants to the animation and

audio elements included within applications such as Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat and

Real Wild Child. In this instance, the media elements were identified as both distracting

and annoying, as evidenced by Ivy (page 7-211) who reacted negatively to the

background sounds and Josef (page 7-283) w h o indicated that the program-initiated

animations interfered with his ability to interpret the content being displayed.

However, the issue with the design of these constructs is that there is inconsistency, in

the context of designing effective strategies, between the perceived role of the

application and the result of implementing those strategies. In the case of Convict Fleet

to Dragon Boat, the background sounds were initiated by the program in a proactive

format (they were not requested by the user), although controls were available to vary

the volume or mute the sounds altogether. It would appear however that being able to

control these elements is not the major issue. Rather it is the user understanding the

overall structure and purpose of the application, including the interface, interactions and

media, and being able to adjust attributes of these when appropriate. This concept is

considered in more detail in the Learners in Control and Interactivity as Negotiation

sections following.

In a similar fashion, participants also expressed on numerous occasions that they were

unclear of the purpose of the application. Despite excellent interface design and the

provision of help or support material, the way in which it could be communicated to the

user was not interpreted. Thus while the interactive components may be well meaning,

there appeared to be a gulf between user and program (compare Norman, 1986) that

could potentially result in interference with and disruption to the continuity and process.

INTERACTIVE BALANCE

For m e , one of the particularly interesting outcomes of this research was the potential

for the interactive profile (derived and discussed in Chapter 7) to provide an alternative

form of measure for the effectiveness of a C E L application. While the design of the

product must take into account the current pedagogical approaches to teaching and

learning, the accompanying interactions have been demonstrated to limit the user's

control of the learning process, as discussed in more detail in the Learners in Control

section.

8-313

In this study, the interactions being carried out were observed from two perspectives -

what the participant did and what they said. I recommend that this process of

observation be refined and extended such that protocols can be put in place whereby

users are observed, videotaped, and interviewed and the actual interactions (from both

physical and cognitive perspectives) recorded. B y generating a profile such as those

illustrated in Chapter 7, a measure can be provided as to the effectiveness an application

has in attaining an interactive balance with the user. A n objective would be to develop

applications whereby this balance could be achieved with the minimum number of

interactions and over the shortest period of time. It may also be the case that this

interactive balance is a measure of the user being in control rather than simply

controlling.

An advantage of this form of measure is that it is based on user's articulated experience

of working with the product, and expands on those measures based on a teacher's or

trainer's assessment of the value of a product's interactivity (Aldrich at al, 1998;

Stouppe, 1998).

LEARNERS IN CONTROL

Overview

Based on the expectations of participants (addressed in Chapter 5), the dimension of

control was identified as pertinent to all facets of interactivity, and is consistent with

learner control research, which has identified the control of components such as pace,

content and sequence as beneficial to the learning process (eg. Millheim, 1990).

However the examples of interactivity considered in Chapter 6 demonstrated that where

the program control limits or restricts the learner, it is perceived to hinder learning. In

one sense any computer-based application can be considered to be under total program

control, as it is the software that defines the range of actions and outcomes available to

the learner. So what are the factors that impact on the dimension of control, and what

constructs can be implemented to place the learner in control?

Trevor provided one of the most telling responses in relation to this as he worked

through the Voodoo Lounge title:

[Trevor]: I felt like I was in control, but half the time I didn't know what I was controlling -

that's the thing.

8-314

His observation suggests that the overt physical controls made available to the user do

not necessarily support the generation of meaning. Based on the range of spoken

responses that expressed concern with the control or purpose of the application, a

c o m m o n thread emerged that differentiated control and in control, reinforcing the

concerns of Rose (1999) as to the actual meaning of the words "learner control",

specifically with respect to the locus of that control.

Using the analogy of a novel, it is as if users are quite comfortable turning the pages but

then unsure of what to do with the words and story presented. In terms of the

observations made throughout the analysis of working with interactivity (Chapter 7),

this can be associated with the conversational aspects of computer-based

communication. In this case the design strategy (manifested in terms of the program

structure) did not appear to initiate communication with the learner of the purpose and

value of the content. Based on these observations, the following presents a series of

options or strategies to support the learner in developing a sense of being in control.

Orientation

One of the notable observations of the participants as they worked with the interactive

titles was that none of them chose to use the documentation provided with the

application to support their interaction with the product. This was despite the packaging,

including information booklets, being paced directly beside the keyboard (see Figure

7.1, page 7-190). O f the seven titles used with this study, 3 provided only installation

information (Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat, Real Wild Child and Frontier), two

provided a brief overview of the content (Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats and

New Zealand Stamps) and two provided details of the content and navigation options

{Australian Stamps and Voodoo Lounge).

Had participants used the information provided by the latter two titles, their encounter

with the product and subsequent responses may have been more directed in terms of

navigation and interpretation of the structure. That the written information was not

accessed is indicative that participants expected all relevant material to be contained

within the application, and reinforces the importance of the designer's purpose also

becoming an integral component of the communication between learner and computer.

8-315

Another issue related to orientation is the context in which the application is used. There

is increasing emphasis for adult learners to operate in an independent environment,

using the communication and collaboration facilities of the internet to maintain cohort

links. Where computer-based learning applications are used in this context, the learner

has no other support than that provided by the application. For them to be able to take

control of the learning within that application, more orientation and purposeful direction

is required. In the case where the designer or teacher is able to personally orient the user

and direct them in its suggested usage for a particular class, then this orientation may be

successful. However, without such support, which is typical of the independent learning

environment, orientation becomes the responsibility of the application, and therefore the

designer.

To achieve this orientation it appears that the introduction to applications needs to be

enhanced to take into account a different level of information. Learners expect to be

given information about the objectives or expected outcomes, but also require continual

monitoring. Using the findings from Chapter 6 that identified prior-experience as a

potential factor impacting on the success of interactivity, novice users might be given

the opportunity for an overview of h o w the application was structured and the way users

were expected to work through it. This somewhat contradicts the notion that it is

advantageous to allow users to explore and jump to locations of interest; however,

based on observations from this study, the learner is comfortable with this level of

control, but not without some orientation to the new and illusory world being presented.

In the same way that authors can create words that enable a reader's imagination to

visualise the location and characters, designers should consider creating interactive

environments that achieve a similar effect and over which the learner has control. As

emphasised in the section on The Learner as Actor, learners need to feel part of the

performance and illusion, and in doing so, will achieve control over the process of

learning and the effective use of the resource.

Communication

It is also important to address the issue of communication. As detailed in the discussion

of Real Wild Child (Chapter 7, page 7-279), Brad had accessed the help system,

articulated the details presented and activated the display of contextual help displayed at

the top of the screen. However, even though this help facility had been activated, Brad

8-316

did not make the connection between activating the option and its appearance on the

screen, nor did he acknowledge its presence. Had the program used some form of

confirmation (Hannafin, 1989), the information presented by the help facility may have

had a different effect.

Assuming Respect

The implication from the previous discussion on orientation and communication suggest

an anthropomorphic process in which the program is able to demonstrate respect for the

learner, while at the same time ensuring that assumptions are not made about their

understanding and interpretation of the structures. Having been associated with a range

of design and development initiatives, I have been involved in creating sequences in

which the activities expected of users have been clearly articulated and demonstrated to

interested third parties such as sponsors or purchasers. However, these expectations

were not necessarily communicated in the same manner to the learners subsequently

operating in an independent environment.

One means of resolving this issue is to use a simple question and answer process, where

the program obtains relevant information about the learner and their expectations, in

much the same was as Hananfin & Peck (1988) suggested for personalising

applications. However, this was explained as a means by which the program would

integrate material of interest to the learner, whereas I a m proposing to place the learner

into a position where they have contributed to both structure and strategy. For example,

it is feasible to devise a program such that the content is contained within a database,

and that parameters provided by the user are used as retrieval criteria for selection and

display of that information. While the program may have a finite range of presentation

possibilities, if the learner is accessing those as if they have been self-determined then

the motivation to use the application may be increased.

This issue raises the question regarding the knowledge the design team must have of

programming capabilities and what can be achieved with a computer system. Given the

range of titles considered in Chapter 7, it appears that the capability of producing a

highly attractive interface is well established. However, creating interactive structures to

support the interface, where the user can make sense of the interactions and control

mechanisms remains elusive as the learner remains, to some extent, out of control!

8-317

The following section extends the options for placing the learner in control by

addressing the concept of establishing an environment in which the learner is able to

negotiate aspects of the interactive process through communication with the program.

INTERACTIVITY AS NEGOTIATION

Overview

The Macquarie Dictionary (1998) defines negotiation as "the mutual discussion and

arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement" and it was in the context of this

definition that conceptualising interactivity as a process of negotiation between the

designer and the learner emerged from m y assessment of the data obtained during the

process of this study. It was apparent from the responses made by participants to the

three questions discussed in Chapter 5 that interactivity was considered more than the

physical action of choosing options from a menu or navigating to new information.

While the theme of Control was frequently identified, so were those of Communication

and Engagement, suggesting that being involved and entering into a two-way process of

communication and information exchange were also integral components of the

interactive process. This was confirmed by numerous responses that the information

was not being presented by the application to support the user.

Prior research into CEL appeared to address this conversational aspect of interactivity

through the responsiveness of the computer - the learner chooses a menu item and the

program presents the associated information. However, this could be analogous to

entering a darkened room, turning on the light and then having to determine what

happens next. Based on the responses provided by participants when working with

interactive titles, it appears there are different levels of communication between learner

and computer, as there are with humans. Part of the conversational process is the

initiation of responses by both parties, and as suggested in the previous sections on

interference and balance, the program was not playing its role in this process.

Based on the background research in narrative (Plowman, 1996a), play (Humpherys,

1997b) and the potential for extending this concept to theatre and performance (Laurel,

1991; Shedroff, 1994), I believe that there is an opportunity to focus on the human-

computer interaction as one between the user and the designer, rather than user and

computer. While the learner is receiving responses from the program, they may not be

8-318

receiving input from the designer - the person w h o devised the program and is

expectant of learners being engaged and developing knowledge and understanding.

While the computer-technology is frequently portrayed as emancipating, providing the

learner with the freedom to pursue their o w n learning needs, it can also be alienating

and confusing if the content is difficult to locate or presented in a manner that is

complex to interpret. One way to gain m a x i m u m benefit from the interaction is for the

learner to be placed in a position where they are able to negotiate and maintain a

conversation with the designer. The following discussion presents a framework by

which this might be achieved.

From Narrative to Negotiation

Figure 8.1 represents a number of elements that re-focus the way in which interactive

materials might be structured to establish negotiation. The first is to introduce the

concept of the user illusion of a narrative-space, that is the extent to which the designer

has created a world in which the user believes (Tognazzini, 1999). Rather than

perceiving this as a metaphor for a real world environment, the illusion sets up a

temporary microworld that the designer will reveal to the user over time. Based on the

observations in this study, it was this gradual revelation of structure that was the user's

responsibility, not that of the software.

User Illusion

R A N C E

Interface

Figure 8.1: An Interactive Negotiation

8-319

Within this narrative space the interface allows the user to participate with the illusion

created, having movement within and control of that space and the ability to navigate to

preferred aspects of the presentation along paths which provide access to discrete

content areas. The user conceptually enters and exits the illusion, rather than beginning

and finishing a prescribed activity.

When the user is focusing on a particular component, the associated interactions come

into play and support a period of engagement. The importance of this concept is that

the program has a significant role in providing the structure and engagement of the user.

If this were to be compared to a side-show, the user is free to move between exhibits but

it is the performer at each exhibit w h o has the challenge to attract and engage the

audience. It is through this form of negotiation that interactive balance might also be

facilitated.

As identified in the discussion for Chapter 7, the program should be responsible for

playing a proactive role in the learner-computer interaction, manifested as if the

designer is spruiking for the learner's attention. In this way the communication extends

from a learner-computer interaction to that of negotiation between learner and designer.

As the learner enters this negotiation space, information on current and past

performance can be made available to the designer (either in person or as an intelligent

agent) in such a way that the structure of the interaction can be adapted. It is then the

designer w h o the learner perceives to be modifying the application to meet their current

learning or informational needs.

The implication is that when a user enters the negotiation space, they bring with them a

set of characteristics both personal (in terms of learning style and motivation) and

archival (in terms of their preferred options as recorded through previous interactive

encounters) which affect the interaction. In brief, an application is adaptive to both user

and designer characteristics.

Operationalisation

It has been suggested (Kearsley, 1987; Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993) that the

implementation of this form of adaptive learning environment model will require

elements of artificial intelligence and expert systems. The reason being that the program

has to be able to process data supplied by both the learner and the designer as they

8-320

cooperate in, and negotiate, the knowledge construction process. However, the extent to

which the application can present the illusion of intelligence and adaptation is the

critical component, as it is the learner w h o perceives whether the response is intelligent

in the way that it has conformed to the negotiation.

I believe the implementation of this form of structure is not so much a programming

issue but one of conceptual design and the ability to create the illusion to the user that

the environment in which they are operating is dynamic. The program does not present

itself as a set of content structures accessible by navigation paths, but as an environment

in which the designer and learner are both involved in the communication and

negotiation process.

The participants from this study identified the interactive constructs of communication,

conversation, participation and engagement as integral components of the interactive

process. The implementation of a conversational form of interaction where only one

person is present requires the design effort to focus on creating an illusion in which both

learner and designer contribute to the inputs and outputs of the interactive process. The

following section examines the designer-learner relationship from the context of a series

of encounters and h o w these encounters might be used to enhance the overall interactive

experience.

INTERACTIVE ENCOUNTERS

Overview

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 C E L application. While they m a y be familiar

with the content and aims of the overriding curriculum, their first encounter with a

computer-based application will potentially be confronting. As the participants worked

through the titles described in Chapter 7, 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.

Continuing the theme that communication between designer and learner is an important

aspect to be addressed in the development of C E L applications, the use of encounters as

8-321

a means to contextualise this communication is the focus of this section. The following

discussion introduces a range of situations that may be described in terms of an

encounter between user and designer, and the implications for the design and

development of C E L projects.

Introductory Encounters

W h e n the user first commences working with an application, 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 are 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 program can use the information to configure the way in which the application

will be presented and the means by which the learner can progress through the content

material. 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 product.

Controlling Encounters

In human-human encounters, the participants may operate equitably or one may

dominate the process. In the case of interactive applications, participants in this study

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 users were quite able to operate the various controlling items, the responses made

by the application were often unpredictable as well as unvarying.

8-322

Again, there m a y 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 h o w the presentation is revealed. In presenting these

options, it has to be clarified that they emerge from the responses given by participants

and that the context in which the application is developed will affect whether or not this

approach is effective. It is anticipated that these ideas can be generalised to a wide range

of content domains and metaphors, independent of the technological environment, with

the aim of achieving even more effective outcomes.

Strategic Encounters

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. O f importance is the extent to which the user has

the illusion that they are being communicated with on an individual and personal level,

Empathetic Encounters

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. Within the

responses recorded in this study, the one most relevant to this form of encounter was

when Mark attempted to search the database in Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat. Although

the search was successful from a technical perspective, the information returned could

not be interpreted because Mark had difficulty determining the link between his request

and the material returned. Had the program (designer) informed the user of the way in

which the search would be performed, the range of data being searched and the potential

8-323

retrievals, either the search request would have been terminated or the information

returned interpreted more easily.

Encounter Theory

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 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 valued for its purpose.

Introducing the importance of encounters, in addition to negotiation and control, has

implications for the production team as these options can significantly affect the overall

design and development effort as well as the subsequent project costs. If the graphical

and media aspects of a product are given less emphasis and the relationship between

designer and learner greater importance, the initial cost m a y be higher but the long-term

returns potentially greater. A s Reeves (1999) declared, w e know how to build these

applications, w e just need to do it better. Envisaging the C E L application as a series of

encounters, rather than a means to structure content, is one way this might be achieved.

THE LEARNER AS ACTOR

This final section extends the notion of control, negotiation and encounter by focussing

on the learner and their role in the overall process. Integrating them into the process by

conceptualising applications that create a perfoimance in which the learner is actor, is

the final strategy proposed for better understanding the ways in which interactivity can

enhance the computer-based learning process.

To address this concept it is useful to compare the character portrayed within a

narrative, that is one w h o is described objectively, with the actor on stage w h o is an

integral, often controlling, component of the performance (Laurel, 1991). In discussing

the concept of computers as theatre, Laurel (1991:94) identified three specific

differences between narrative and drama:

Enactment - acting out rather than reading; whereas narrative is description, drama is action.

Intensification - incidents are selected, arranged and represented to intensify emotion and condense time. Narrative is often the reverse process of extensification, expanding or exploding time.

Unity of action versus episodic structure - dramas have a central action with causally linked incidents whereas narrative tends to quasi-independent and thematically connected incidents.

In the case of the participants contributing to this study, interactivity with the software

titles was generally in the observer role - making choices and then watching as the

program responded. Although this represents communication in the form of stimulus

and response, there was little evidence that the computer was responding to the

individual learner. While the response is a valuable component of the learning process,

the findings overall indicated that people were not being given the chance to participate

in any real sense. The users were not able to enact, the content was typically structured

without narrative or drama and there appeared to be little unity or episodic structure.

Even Real Wild Child and Voodoo Lounge, which were set in realistic 'virtual' worlds,

demonstrated a lack of narrative structure. Users either had to interpret the links

embedded within the interface or if those links were provided, such as the VTP card in

Voodoo Lounge, those links were not understood and the user remained disoriented

within the overall interface. As representatives of contemporary multimedia titles, the

emphasis was on content and interface rather than revealing the underlying structure to

the user. Although the titles used in this study could have enabled the user to create their

own narrative, the limited level of communication, balance and negotiation limited the

value of the overall encounter.

As I analysed each of the transcripts and interactions presented by the participants, the

possibility of portraying the learner as actor emerged. Again, it is important to

emphasise that this is related to those computer-based environments where the learner is

generally operating independently. There has been much written about situated,

contextual and participatory learning and each contributes to this conceptualisation. For

example, the Australian A r m y has implemented a computer-based application for

soldiers to conduct a terrain reconnaissance that benefits from being situated (using

8-325

different landscapes), contextual (under threat of enemy attack) and enabling the

learners to participate by taking a particular role in that procedure.

However the outcomes from this study suggest an extension is required to the way in

which the participation is undertaken. Perceiving the learner as actor requires

consideration of the way they understand the various objects, controls and purpose of

the environment in order to maximise the learning experience. In this case having some

knowledge of the script becomes important, not just in terms of the objectives of the

activity, but of the designer's assumptions in structuring the training material. The

learner as actor m a y also choose one of a number of roles that would extend the

longevity of a product, it need not be seen as a task to be completed once, but a resource

where different performances would yield different results.

In comparison to the learner as participant, where there is a notion of other people

involved with and possibly controlling the activities, the learner as actor requires a deal

of effort on behalf of the learner. B y examining the expectations placed on an actor in

the dramatic world, a perspective can be given to the learner in a computer-based

environment. The following uses the acting qualities identified by Grandstaff (1995) to

extend the way in which learner-computer interactions can be understood.

Actors must be able to be heard and to use their voice expressively, emphasising the

need for practice and experience. In many computer-based applications the user is given

little opportunity to become experienced other than over time. If the user cannot gain

the confidence to use the application rapidly, then the initial contact may be considered

as unrewarding, and reduce the chances of perseverance or a return visit, as articulated

by E m m a as she worked with Voodoo Lounge.

Rehearsing, getting it right, may be one challenge for designers during the introductory

encounter with learners, with the rehearsal providing the opportunity for the learner to

achieve an appropriate interactive balance for their current needs. In a theatrical

performance, the audience and other players are aware of the actor playing the lead role.

In the case of computer-based activities, the audience can be perceived as the alter ego

of the learner - by participating in the application and achieving the educational goals

they feel a level of success. If a performance, that success would be demonstrated by the

pleasure of the audience; in this instance it is the pleasure of the individual's success in

having participated in a performance that will produce successful results.

Grandstaff (1995) also identifies the concepts and skills associated with acting that

include improvisation, dramatic structure, stage orientation, movements, entrances,

exits, gestures and reaction. In the computer-based environment these represent the

characteristics over which the learner has control - and when in control the learner

(actor) is patient while others present their lines and then proceed. The actor also has to

understand the character they portray, develop a polished performance and be able to

work with the director.

The concept of learner as actor therefore extends the way in which people working with

computer-based interactive products participate in the overall process and presentation

of content. In the same way that an actor puts their personality on the role they play, so I

a m arguing for learners, through strategies of balance, negotiation, control and

encounter, to have some opportunity to manage their interactivity.

CONCLUSION

This study commenced as an investigation into interactivity, the term applied with

almost reverence to computer-based learning applications and yet remaining difficult to

define. More importantly, the huge investment and research in computer-based

interactive learning resources has continually been subjected to debate as to its value

and cost-effectiveness. Beginning with m y o w n belief in the magic that computer-based

technology has the potential to deliver, I was faced with the question "what is

interactivity in the context of computer based learning"?

Using a range of data collection strategies within a qualitative research paradigm, I set

about investigating the concept of interactivity and identified a number of recurring

themes. From interactive environments, the participants expected control, conversation

and participation. However, when placed in the context of working with such

applications, these dimensions were limited if not absent. While the participants had no

difficulty in using the controls or suspending belief while they operated within the

digital world presented, there was little evidence that the application was playing its role

in the communication process.

8-327

Having placed interactivity on stage and enabled the participants, as audience, to be

judge of its audition, I believe that within this metaphor there is more to interactivity

than has been previously considered. W e have an audience of learners, and while their

characteristics and paradigms of learning continually evolve, w e are able to provide

appropriate means by which they can view a performance. And with the stage and set

design, w e have developed comprehensive understandings of what looks good and how

it can be presented. What appears to be missing however is the way in which the actors

take on their roles. Using this metaphor, I believe w e need to think more about the

learner taking on some of the actor's role, through interpretation of the script and even

being enabled to improvise where appropriate.

As a result of this audition, I have identified six areas that might enhance the chances of

interactivity securing that lead role where learning is meaningful and the learners

engaged:

• Reducing interactive interference

• Establishing interactive balance

• Creating environments where learners are in control

• Enabling interactive negotiation between designer and learner

• Implementing the learner-computer interface as a series of encounters

• Allowing the learner to be an actor

The on-going success of computer-based learning will be through interactivity as a

manifestation of communication between designer and learner. If designers can develop

their ideas into a performance such that the learner is integrated with that illusion, then

the magic and engagement so eagerly sought after might well be realised.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, D. & Tauber, M.J. (Eds) (1990). Mental Models and Human-Computer Interaction 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

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.

Alessi, S.M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40-47.

Alessi, S.M. & Trollip, S.R. (1991). Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development (2nd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Alexander, S. & McKenzie, J. (1998). An Evaluation of Information Technology Projects for University Learning. Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Anderson, J. (1990). The Adaptive Character of Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Andris, J.F. & Stueber, A.M. (1994). Studying student navigational patterns in a hypermedia geology lab simulation and their relationship to learning style. [Online]. Available: http://www.siue.edu/nandris/HTMLDocuments/AI^RIS/Studving/Studving.html. [30th M a y 2000].

APTA(1997). The Wonderful World of Australian Stamps. [CD-ROM]. APTA, Sydney, Australia.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Ingredients for a theory of instruction. American Psychologist, 27,921-931.

Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997). Frontier. [CD-ROM]. Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sydney.

Australian Multimedia Testing Centre (2000). [On-line] Available: http://www.amtc.com.au [30th M a y 2000].

Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. N e w York: Grune & Stratton.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. N e w York: General Learning Press

Bardini, T. (1997). Bridging the gulfs: From hypertext to hyperspace. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2), 1-22. [Online]. Available: http://icmc.huii.ac.il/vol3/issue2/bardini.htmU30 May 2000].

Barrett, E. & Redmond, M. (Eds) (1995). Contextual Media: Multimedia and Interpretation. Cambridge, M A : The M I T Press.

Bartolome, A.R. (1998). Multimedia or interactivity: At least the appearance of two way communication. [Online]. Available: ^ http://www.kin.ucalgarv.ca/mmwww/seminars/Bartolo/Bartolo.htmU211 February

1998].

329

Bellamy, R., Woolsey, K., Cooper, E. & Kerns, C. (1999). Design experiments with media-rich messaging. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 149-177.

Berlo, D. (1960). The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. N e w York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Booth, P. (1989). An Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Borsook, T.K. & Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: What it is and what it can do for computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 3/(10), 11-17.

Bower, G.H. & Hilgard, E.R. (1981). Theories of Learning. (5th Edition). N e w York: Prentice Hall.

Bower, G.H. & Morrow, D.G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247,44-48.

Boyle, T. (1997). Design for Multimedia Learning. London: Prentice Hall.

Brand, S. (1988). The Media Lab: Inventing the Future atMT. N e w York, N Y : Penguin.

Brown, J.S. & Van Lehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science, 4, 379-426.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press.

Burger, K. (1985). Computer assisted instruction: Learning style and academic achievement. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12(1), 21-22.

Burns, R.B. (1997). Introduction to Research Methods. (3rd Edition). South Melbourne, Vic: Longman.

Caffarella, E.P. (1999). Doctoral Research in Educational Technology: A Directory of Dissertations, 1977-1998. [Online] Available: http://www.edtech.univnorthco.edu/disswww/dissdir.htm [18th November 1999].

Cameron, A (1998). Dissimulations: Illusions of interactivity. [Online] Available: http://ma.hrc.wmin.ac.Uk/kids/ma.theorv.3.2.db [30th M a y 2000].

Card, S., Moran, T. & Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carroll, J.M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel. Cambridge, M A : M I T Press.

Carroll, T. (1999). Personal communication.

Cavalier, J.C. & Klein, J.D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 5-18.

Center for Interactive Advertising (1999). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward website. [Online] Available: http://www.utexas.edu/coc/admedium/Ivorv/perceived interactivitv.html f30 May 2000].

Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.

330

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-459.

Clark, R.C. (1989). Developing Technical Training. Phoenix: Performance Technology Press.

Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11,671 -684.

Crockford, D. (1988). Stand by for fun, in S. Ambron & K. Hooper (Eds), Interactive Multimedia. Redmond, W A : Microsoft.

Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. N e w York: Irvington.

Cross, K.P. (1981). Adults as Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

De Bono, E. (1967). New Think: The Use of Lateral Thinking in the Generation of New Ideas. N e w York: Basic Books.

Dempsey, J. V. & Sales, G.C. (1993). Interactive Instruction and Feedback. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Dick, W . & Carey, L. (1990). The Systematic Design of Instruction (3rd Edition). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. & Beale, R. (1993). Human-Computer Interaction. N e w York: Prentice Hall.

Draper, S. (1996). Content and interactivity. [Online]. Available: http://itechl.coe.uga.edu/itforum/extra3/ex3-28.html [30th May 2000].

Dugdale, S., DeKoven, E. & Ju, M. (1998). Computer course enrolment, home computer access, and gender: Relationships to high school students' success with computer spreadsheet use for problem solving in pre-algebra. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 18(1), 49-62.

Eberts, R.E. (1994). User Interface Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Educational Technology (1993). Landamatics ten years later: A n interview with Lev. N. Landa. Educational Technology, 33(6), 7-18.

Fenrich, P. (1997). Practical Guidelines for Creating Instructional Multimedia Applications. Fort Worth, PA: The Dryden Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Filipczak, B. (1996). Engaged! The nature of computer interactivity. Training, 33(11),

52-58.'

Fitzkee, D. (1943). Showmanship for Magicians. Pomeroy, OH: Lee Jacobs

Productions.

Flick, K. & Goodall, H. (1998). Angledool stories: Aboriginal history in hypermedia, in R. Perks & A. Thomson (Eds), The Oral History Reader. London: Routledge.

Foley, G. (2000). Understanding Adult Education and Training. (2nd Edition). St

Leonards, N S W ; Allen & Unwin.

Fritze P (1994). A visual mapping approach to the evaluation of multimedia learning materials, in K. Beattie, C. McNaught & S. Wills (Eds), Interactive Multimedia in

University Education: Designing for Change in Teaching and Learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV.

Fritze, P. & McNaught, C. (1996). VisMap: A C D for Exploring Evaluation Issues in Computer-Facilitated Learning. Proceedings of the From Virtual to Reality Apple University Academic Conference, University of Queensland.

Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning. 4th Edition. N e w York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J. & Wager, W.W. (1988). Principles of Instructional Design (3rd Edition). N e w York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Gahan, C. & Hannibal, M. (1998). Doing Qualitative Research Using QSRNUD*IST. London: Sage Publications.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. NY: Basic Books.

Gery, G. (1987). Making CBT Happen. Boston, M A : Wiengarten Publications.

Gibson, J.J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gilbert, L. & Moore, D.R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.

Grandstaff, RJ. (1995). Acting & Directing. (3rd Edition). Lincolnwood, 111: National Textbook Company.

Guthrie, E.R. (1935). The Psychology of Learning. N e w York: Harper.

Hall, B. (1997). Web-Based Training Cookbook. N e w York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hannafin, M.J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 18(3), 167-179.

Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49-63.

Hannafin, M.J. & Peck, K.L. (1988). The Design, Development, and Evaluation of Instructional Software. N e w York: Macmillan Publishing.

Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., Hooper, S.R., Rieber, L.P. & Kini, A S . (1996). Research on and research with emerging technologies, in D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. N e w

York, N Y : Simon & Schuster.

Harmon, S.W. (1992). O n the nature of exploratory behaviour in hypermedia environments: considerations of learner use patterns for the design of hypermedia instructional systems. Unpublished dissertation. U M I Dissertation Services - No.

9235414.

Hart I (1996). Learners as designers: Computers as cognitive tools in architecture education. Unpublished dissertation. University of Wollongong.

Heath J (1996) When interactive media is not truly interactive.[Online]. Available: httrV//www.cti.ar. i,Wpiihl/actlea/i^^3/heath/index.html [30 May 2000].

Hedberg J & Harper, B. (1997). Visual Metaphors and Authoring [Online] S I i m S t e **» an/~-THedberg/ITFORUM.html [26

th January 2000].

Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication, in J.L. Salvaggio & B. Jennings (Eds), Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Consumer Use. Hillsdale, N H : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hilf, W.H. (1996). Beginning, middle and end - not necessarily in that order. Homer Hypermedia. [Online] Available: http://www.cvbertown.com/hi1fhtml [30th M a v 2000]. y

Hillman, D.C., Willis, D.J. & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: A n extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. 77ie American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Hodgkinson, H.L. (1967). Education, Interaction, and Social Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. London, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Holmes, M. (1995). Interactivity primer: exploring the essence of good interactivity. [Online]. Available: http://www.multimediator.com/publications/writeOKshtml [11th November 1999].

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of Learning Styles. Revised Edition. Peter Honey Publications.

Hull, C. (1943). Principles of Behavior. N e w York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Humpherys, S. (1997a). Narrative and interactivity: A n overview of the story so far. Language and Interactivity Conference. [Online] Available: http://click.com.au/afc/presentations [2nd August 1998].

Humpherys, S. (1997b). Interactivity as play: Exploring play theory for its usefulness in analysing and producing interactive multimedia. [Online] Available: http://www.ngapartii.comn.au/research/rosebua7research/Interactivitv as play .html [28th July 1998].

InterCom (1992). How to Develop CBT. Commercial brochure, InterCom.

International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS) (1999). Discussion list. [Online] Available: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html [30th M a y 2000].

International Quality & Productivity Centre (2000). Harnessing eLearning and Technology Assisted Training. Publicised Conference, M a y 22nd and 23rd, Sydney Australia. Information: http://www.iqpc.com.au [30th M a y 2000].

Iuppa, N.V. (1984). A Practical guide to Interactive Video Design. White Plains, N Y : Knowledge Industry Publications.

Jakobsottir, S. & Hooper, S. (1995). Computer-assisted foreign language learning: Effects of text, context, and gender on listening comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 43-59.

Jaspers, F. (1991). Interactivity or instruction? A reaction to Merrill. Educational Technology, 31(3), 21-24).

Johnson, J. & Olivia, M . (1998). Internet textuality: Toward interactive multilinear narrative. [Online] Available: http://olivia.historv.denison.edu/maurizio/pmcl [30th

July 1998].

333

Jonassen, D.H. (1985). Interactive lesson designs: A taxonomy. Educational Technology, 25(6), 7-17.

Jonassen, D.H. (1988). Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper processing, in D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtoolsfor Critical Thinking. N e w Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Jonassen, D.H. & Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Handbook of Individual Difference, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D. & Tessmer, M. (1996). An outcomes based taxonomy for instructional systems design, evaluation, and research. Training Research Journal, 2,11-46.

Josephson, H. (1997). Interface Metaphors. Language and Interactivity Conference. [Online] Available: http.V/click. com, au/afc/presentations/hal+i. html [2nd August 1998].

Juchau, R. (1999). Are universities really benefiting from new waves in education? Hawkesbury Graduate, 1 of 2, 20-21.

Kearsley, G. (1977). Some conceptual issues in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 4(1), 8-16.

Kearsley, G. (Ed.) (1987). Artificial Intelligence and Instruction. Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley.

Kearsley, G. (1997). Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database. [Online]. Available: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip [30th May 2000].

Kearsley, G. & Shneiderman, B. (1998) Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.

Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the A R C S motivation model in courseware design, in D. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kinzie, M.B., Sullivan, H.J., & Berdel, R.R. (1988). Learner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3),

299-303.

Kirsch, D. (1997). Interactivity and multimedia interfaces. Instructional Science, 25(2),

79-96.

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Knowles, M. (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (4th Edition). Houston:

Gulf Publishing.

Kolb, D.A. (1976). Learning style inventory technical manual. Boston, M A : Mcber &

Co. Kozma, R.B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2),

179-211.

Kristof, R. & Satran, A. (1995). Interactivity by design: Creating and Communicating with New Media. Mountain View, CA: Adobe Press.

Kulik, J.A, Bangert, R.L. & Williams, G.W. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1),

Kumar, R. (1996). Research Methodology. Melbourne, Vic: Longman.

Landa, L. (1974). Algorithmization in Learning and Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Larsen, R.E. (1992). Relationship of learning style to the effectiveness and acceptance of interactive video instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 9(1), 17-21.

Last, D.A., O'Donnell, A.M. & Kelly, A.E. (1998). Using hypermedia: effects of prior knowledge and goal strength. Proceedings of SITE 98. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Washington, DC, March 10-14,1998). (ED421146).

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Laurel, B. (Ed.) (1990). The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley.

Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as Theatre. Reading, M A : Addison Wesley.

Laurillard, D. (1998). Multimedia and the learner's experience of narrative. Computers & Education, 31,229-242.

Liestol, G. (1994). Wittgenstein, Genette, and the reader's narrative in hypertext, in G.P. Landow (Ed.), Hyper/Text/Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

McNaught, C. (1999). Email communication requesting submissions for a special edition of the Journal of Interactive Learning focusing on courseware development.

Macquarie Dictionary (1998). The Macquarie Concise Dictionary. 3rd Edition. Macquarie University, N S W : The Macquarie Library.

Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.

Magidson, E.M. (1978). Student assessment of PLATO: What students like and dislike about CAI. Educational Technology, 18(8), 21-25.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning, in R. E. Snow & M. J. Fair (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, HI: Conative and Affective Process Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maltzman, I. (1960). O n the training of originality. Psychological Review, 67(4), 229-242.

Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (1984). The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory, in C. Reigeluth (Ed), Instructional Design Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Merrill, M.D., Drake, L. Pratt, J. and the ID2 Research Group at Utah State University (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.

335

Milheim, W.D. (1990). The effects of pacing and sequence control in an interactive video lesson. Educational Technology and Training International, 27(1), 7-19.

Milheim, W.D. (1996). Interactivity and computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 24(3), 225-233.

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Misanchuk, E.R. & Schwier, R.A. (1992). Representing interactive multimedia and hypermedia audit trails. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1,355-372.

Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.

Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6.

Murray, J.H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. N e w York: The Free Press.

National Institute of Dramatic Art (1998). Stage Struck. [CD-ROM]. Information: http://www.nida.com.au [30th M ay 2000].

Newell, A. (1990). Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press.

Newell, A. & Simon, H (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

N e w Zealand Post (1997). N e w Zealand Stamps: A Virtual Album. [CD-ROM]. Information: enquiry(S)/wgmsc.nzpost.co.nz.

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.

Norman, D.A. (1987). Cognitive engineering - cognitive science, in J.M. Carroll (Ed.), Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, M A : M I T Press.

Outing, S. (1998). What exactly is 'interactivity'? [Online]. Available: http://www.mediainfo.corn/ephome/news/newshtm/stop/stl20498.htm [30th May

2000].

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations. N e w York: Oxford University Press.

Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Paolucci, R. (1998). The effects of cognitive style and knowledge structure on performance using a hypermedia learning system. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2/3), 123-150.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.

Park, O. (1996). Adaptive instructional systems, in D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. N e w York, N Y : Simon

& Schuster.

336

Parrish, P. (1996). Interactivity in computer-aided learning (CAL). [Online]. Available: http://www.comet.ucar.edu/pub html/npi/interac3html [30th M ay 2000].

Pemberton. S. (Ed.) (1997). Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI'97 Conference Proceedings. N e w York, N Y : Association for Computing Machinery.

Piaget, J. (1929). The Child's Conception of the World. N Y : Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.

Piesk, J. & Trogemann, G. (1998). Presenting educational contents in nonlinear narrative structures by conversational virtual actors, in T. Ottmann & I. Tomek (Eds). Proceedings of ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM 98. Freiburg, Germany; June 20-25,1998. Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.

Plowman, L. (1996a). Narrative, linearity and interactivity: making sense of interactive multimedia. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 92-105.

Plowman, L. (1996b). Designing interactive media for schools: A review based on contextual observation. Information Design Journal, 8(3), 258-266.

Plowman, L. (1997). Getting side-tracked: cognitive overload, narrative, and interactive learning environments, in T. O'Shea (Ed.), Virtual Learning Environments and the Role of the Teacher. Proceedings of UNESCO/Open university International Colloquium.

Preece, J. (1994). Human-Computer Interaction. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.

Quinn, S.F. (1997). Language learning as performance. [Online] Available: http://www.aasianst.org/absts/1997abst/inter/il85.htm [30th M ay 2000].

Rackman, N. & Morgan, T. (1977). Behaviour Analysis in Training. London: McGraw Hill.

Rasmussen, K.L. & Davidson-Shivers, G.V. (1998). Hypermedia and learning styles: can performance be influenced? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 291-308.

Real Wild Child Consortium (1997). Real Wild Child: Australian Rock Music 1950s-90s. [CD-ROM], Information: http://www.realwildchild.com.au [30th May 2000].

Reeves, T.C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case for learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39-46.

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.

Reigeluth, C. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(3), 80-86

Reinbott, R. (2000). Personal communication.

Reiser, R.A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history, in R.M. Gagne (Ed), Instructional Technology Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rhodes, D.M. & Azbell, J.W. (1985). Designing interactive video instruction professionally. Training and Development Journal, December, 31-33.

337

Rieber, L.P. (1994). Computers, Graphics, & Learning. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Ripple Media (1998). Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat. [CD-ROM]. Ripple Media Pty Ltd, Australia. Information: http://www.ripplemedia.com.au [30th May 2000]

Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1986). Developing Auto-Instructional Materials. London: Kogan Page.

Rose, E. (1999). Deconstructing interactivity in educational computing. Educational Technology, 39(1), 43-49.

Ross, S.M.& Morrison, G.R. (1996). Experimental research methods, in D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. N e w York, N Y : Simon & Schuster.

Rumelhart, D. & Norman, D. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning, in. J.W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds), Semantic Factors in Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Russell, T.L. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University.

Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of Media, Cognition, and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Santiago, R. S. & Okey, J.R. (1992). The effects of advisement and locus of control on achievement in learner-controlled instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(2), 47-53.

Savenye, W.C. & Robinson, R.S. (1996). Qualitative research issues and methods: An introduction for educational technologists, in D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. N e w York, N Y : Simon & Schuster.

Scaife, M. & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 45, 185-213.

Scandura, J.M. (1973). Structural Learning I: Theory and Research. London: Gordon &

Breach,

Schaffer, L.C. & Hannafin, M.J. (1986). The effects of progressive interactivity on learning from interactive video. Educational Communication and Technology

Journal, 34(2), 89-96.

Schank, R.C. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press

Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (1996). Communication & Cultural Literacy: An Introduction. St

Leonards, N S W : Allen & Unwin.

Schmeck, R R (1988). A n introduction to strategies and styles of learning, in R.R. Schmeck (Ed), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. N e w York: Plenum Press.

Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. N e w York: Academic Press.

Schwier, R. & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

338

Selnow, G.W. (1988). Using interactive computer to communicate scientific information. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(2), 124-135.

Shaffer, D.W. & Resnick, M . (1999). "Thick" authenticity: N e w media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195-215.

Shannon, C E . & Weaver, W . (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Shedroff, N. (1994). Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design. [Online]. Available: http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/ [20th April 2000].

Shneiderman, B. (1993). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. 2nd Edition. Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage Publications.

Sims, R. (1994). Seven levels of interactivity: implications for the development of multimedia education and training, in (Ed) M. Ryan, Proceedings of the APITITE

Conference, Volume 3. Brisbane, Qld: APITITE.

Sims, R. (1997a). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2),

157-180.

Sims, R. (1997b). Interactive learning as an emerging technology: A reassessment of interactive and instructional design strategies. Australian Journal of Educational

Technology, 13(1), 68-84.

Sims, R. (1998). Interactivity or narrative? A critical analysis of their impact on interactive learning, in R.M. Corderoy (Ed.), Flexibility: The Next Wave? Proceedings of the 1998 ASCILITE Conference, Wollongong.

Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 257-272.

Skinner, B.F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57(4),

193-216.

SmartForce (1999). November 2nd 1999. Computers: The Cutting Edge.

[Advertisement]. The Australian, 10.

Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace. Spinifex

Press.

Spiro R J Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains, in T j Duffy & D Jonassen (Eds) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Steinberg E R (1991) Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Synthesis of Theory, Practice,

and Technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, RJ. (1977). Intelligence, Information Processing, and Analogical Reasoning.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sticht, T.G. (1976). Comprehending readingrat™± in.*LJust& P. Carpenter (Eds), Cognitive Processes in Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.

Stouppe J R (1998). Measuring interactivity. Performance Improvement, 37(9), 19-23.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury park, CA: Sage Publications.

Summers, J.A. (1990). Effect of interactivity upon student achievement, completion intervals, and affective perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,

19(1), 53-57.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.

Cognitive Science, 12,257-285.

Szabo, M . & Kanuka, H. (1999). Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity, and focus on recall learning, study time, and completion rates. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 23-42.

Tannenbaum, R.S. (1998). Theoretical Foundations of Multimedia. New York:

Computer Science Press.

Taylor, R. (Ed) (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. N e w York: Teachers College Press.

Taynton, Y. (1999). Personal communication.

Teh, G.P.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1995). Gender differences in achievement and attitudes among students using computer-assisted instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media. 22(2), 111-120.

Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational Psychology: The Psychology of Learning. N e w York: Teachers College Press.

Thomdyke, P.W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.

Tognazzini, B. (1999). Magic and Software Design. [Online] Available: http://www.asktog.com/papers/magic.html [30th M ay 2000].

Tolman, E.C. (1932). Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. N e w York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Trilling, B. & Hood, P. (1999). Learning, technology, and educational reform in the knowledge age or "we're wired, webbed, and windowed, now what?". Educational Technology, 39(3), 5-18.

Trochim, W.M. (1999). The Research Methods Knowledge Base (2nd Edition). [Online] Available: http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/index.htm (version current as of April 09,1999) [30th May 2000].

University of Wollongong (1997). Dispossessed, Diggers and Democrats. [CD-ROM]. Information: academic(o),allen-unwin. com. au.

Virgin (1995). Rolling Stones: Voodoo Lounge. [CD-ROM]. Virgin Benelux, B.V.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, M A : M I T Press.

Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.

Waraich, A. (1998). Telling stories - the role of narrative in intelligent tutoring systems in T. Ottmann & I. Tomek (Eds). Proceedings of ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM98 Freiburg, Germany; June 20-25,1998. Virgina: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.

340

Weller, H.G. (1988). Interactivity in microcomputer-based instruction: Its essential components and how it can be enhanced. Educational Technology, 28(2), 23-27.

Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive Thinking (Enlarged Edition). N e w York: Harper & Row.

Whitby, M. (1998). Is interactive dead? [Online]. Available: http.//www.wired cnm/wired/1.1/departments/idees.fortes/interactive.html [30th July 1998].

Williams, M.D. (1993). A comprehensive review of learner-control: The role of learner characteristics, in M.R. Simonson (Ed), Proceedings of the 1993 AECT Convention. N e w Orleans, LA: A E C T Publications.

Wilson, B.G. (1999). The dangers of theory-based design. [Online]. Available: http://dragon.ep.usm.edu/~int/dangers.html [30th M a y 2000].

Yeamen, A.R.J., Hlynka, D., Anderson, J.H., Damarin, S.K. & Muffoletto, R. (1996). Postmodern and poststructural theory, in D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. N e w York, N Y : Simon & Schuster.

APPENDICES

APPENDtXA

A.1: Sample of consent form signed by each participant

APPENDIX B

B.1: Cover letter for survey

B.2: Sample survey form

APPENDIX C

C.1: Instructions for allocating examples of interactivity

C.2: Sample of raw data after allocation of interactivity examples

APPENDIX D

D.1: Sample of instructions provided prior to video recording

D.2: Sample content, time and interactivity audit data

D.3: Sample structures from software designed to create representations of audit trails

D.4: Sample of percentage interactivity recorded during video observation

D.5: Sample transcript of participant comments working with interactivity

APPENDIX A.1

SAMPLE OF CONSENT FORM

SIGNED BY EACH PARTICIPANT

Interactivity and Computer-Based Learning1

Consent Form

Participation Date /

Participant's N a m e

agree to participate in the research project, Interactivity and Computer-Based Learning, being conducted by Rod Sims studying at the University of Wollongong, as part of his PhD research.

I understand that the purpose of this study is to investigate the different ways individuals understand and respond to the interactions provided in multimedia computer-

based learning applications.

I understand that my participation in this research will involve: a) sorting statements relating to interactivity on a series of scales b) being video-taped while working with specific multimedia computer-based learning

applications c) interviews which will also be video-taped

I am aware that I can contact Rod Sims or his supervisor Professor John Hedberg at the addresses below if I have any concerns about the research. I also understand that I am free to withdraw my participation from this research project at any time I wish and

without giving a reason.

I give permission for information from the sorting activities, video-taped sessions and interviews to be used in a PhD thesis, book, article or other publication associated with this research, on the condition that I approve all such uses before they are finalised and that I am given adequate opportunities to withdraw permission for any particular use.

I acknowledge that Rod Sims has answered all my questions fully and clearly.

Signed: . _ / _ _ / _

CONTACTS: Rod Sims, School of Multimedia 4 Information Technology Southern Cross University, (02) 6659-3310 Professor John Hedberg, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, (02) 4221 3316

1 This study has been recorded as ECN-98-Q49 by Southern Cross University, and no approval by the Eth.cs

Committee was considered necessary. If you have any complaints or " T f ? h ^ 7 , ^ ~ £ £ , An_ participation in this study you may contact the Ethics Committee through Mr John Russell ) 6620-3705. Any ZlphZ you make will be treated in confidence and investigated fully and you will be mformed of the outcome.

APPENDIX B.1

COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY

Page 1

Cover Letter

Interactivity and Control as Predictors of Effective Educational Communication

Dear Colleague

As a component of my doctoral research, I am conducting a survey to collect information on the ways people such as yourself perceive the concept of interactivity, and its relationship to the effective delivery of educational technology.

The overall aim of the research is to assess the extent to which interactivity, a iundamental component of educational technology, determines the effectiveness and subsequent success of such applications. This survey forms the initial stage of my research and is designed to collect data to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of interactivity by which educational technology applications might be measured.

If your internet browser permits, the survey can be completed and submitted electronically. Alternatively, you may print the form before responding and fax to the address below. Your participation in this survey is appreciated, and all information supplied will remain confidential.

I thank you for your time and input.

Rod Sims School of Multimedia & Information Technology Southern Cross University Coffs Harbour N S W 2457 AUSTRALIA

Phone: (02) 6659-3310 Fax: (02) 6659-3612 Email: rsims@scu.edu.au

Return to Survey

Last Modified 17:1718/06/98

file://C:\professionalVesearch\rod-phd\thesis\99-appendices\b 1 -cover.htm 29-05-2000

APPENDIX B.2

SAMPLE SURVEY FORM

Page 1 of4

Interactivity Survey

Interactivity Survey

Thank you for agreeing to participate in and complete this survey. A n explanatory cover letter is available for further details, and you can obtain additional information from Rod Sims if required. The survey is divided into three parts:

1. Information about yourself 2. Your experience with educational technology 3. Your understanding of interactivity

Once you have completed all sections, please use the SUBMIT button to transmit your responses. If your browser does not support this option, please print the survey form and fax to Rod Sims on (+61-2) 6659-3612. Your contribution is most appreciated,

Submit : transmit your completed survey

Restart : re-enter

your responses

Part 1: Personal Information

1.1 Demographics

Gender: C Male (* Female

Country:

Age: <~ 16-24 C 25-34 C 35-44 C 45-54 C 55+

Experience: (years working with and/or studying instructional technology)

r o r 1-5 r 5-10 r 10-15 c 15+

1.2 Your current role in applying technology to teaching and

learning?

r

Instructional Designer

W e b Page Developer

f Network Support i~"

P Teacher i~~

F Student l"~

f" Interactive Designer

f~ Interactive Developer

On-Line Learning

Research

None

r Other (please add

details)

r r

Graphics Designer

Audio/Video Specialist

P Web Page Designer

f Content Expert

fite://C:\Professional_es^^ 29-05-2000

a Part 2: Experience with Educational Technology

2.1 Learning with Educational Technology.

2.1.1 On how marry occasions have you used educational technology applications as a learner?

C None C 1-4 C 5-9 C 10+

»»»if none proceed to Question 2.2.

2.1.2 Was this learning undertaken while a student in:

C School C University C" Employment C Other j

2.1.3 What was the medium for learning?

<- 2 L r T0n" r

BOA R O M Line

2.1.4 If possible, please identify the products or applications used?

I

2.2 Designing Educational Technology.

2.2.1 On how many occasions have you designed, or helped design, educational technology applications?

C None C- 1-4 C 5-9 C 10+

»»»if none proceed to Question 2.3.

2.2.2 If you have experience as a designer, what environment was the product designed for?

T School c University C Business <~ Range

2.2.3 What was the medium for delivery?

r CD- C 0n" r Both

R O M Line 2.2.4 What strategy was applied to the design?

C Instructivist <~ Constructivist ^ Combination

2.2.5 If possible, please identify any design tools used to support the project?

2.3 Developing Educational Technology.

ffle://CAprofeSsionalVesearchVod-phd\theSis\99-aPpendices\b2-card-survey.htm 29-05-2000

2.3.1 How many educational technology applications have you developed, or helped develop?

C None (»»»Question 3) C 1-4 C 5-9 C 10+

2.3.2 If you have experience as a developer, what environment was the product designed for?

C School O University C Business C Range

2.3.3 What was the medium for delivery?

r CD- r On- r _ t, P ROM ° Line C Both

2.3.4 What development tools were used for the project?

<~ Macromedia <~ Asymterix C H T M L C Internal C Combination

2.3.5 If possible, please nominate other development tools used?

Part 3. Your Understanding of Interactivity

3.1 What makes an educational multimedia product interactive^

3.2 What do you see as the major characteristics of interactivity!

3.3 What do you see as the major benefits of interactivity to the learning process?

file://C:\profesSional\researchVod-phd\thesis\99-aPpendices\b2-card-survey. 29-05-2000

Copyright ©1998 Roderick CH Sims Sunday, 8 November 1998 22:41:09

file://C:\professional\research\rod-phd\thesis\99-appendices\b2-card-survey.htm 29-05-2000

APPENDIX C.1

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALLOCATING

EXAMPLES OF INTERACTIVITY

Interactivity and Computer-Based Learning

Sorting Interactivity Statements

Instructions

F O P this phase of the study, you are asked to work with a set of 66 statements describing various aspects of interactivity in relation to computer-based learning.

Each statement is printed on a card, and your task is to place each of the cards onto a grid in the position you think is most consistent with its meaning.

If you think the statement best illustrates:

• program control and would support learning, place the card in position 1

• user control and would support learning, place the card in position 2

• user control and would hinder learning, place the card in position 3

• program control and would hinder learning, place the card in position 4

A sample of the grid you will be using is shown below:

Supports Learning

Program Control

User Control

Hinders Learning

APPENDIX C2

SAMPLE OF RAW DATA AFTER

ALLOCATION OF INTERACTIVITY EXAMPLES

Sample Raw Data For Participants from Group B

Example PBI 1

P82 PB3

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 4 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 4 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 4 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 4 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 2 1 1 1 1

PB4 PB5

2 2 3 3 2 3 1 4 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 3 2 2 2 1

PB6 PB?

2 2

2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 1 2 3 1 4 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 2 1 4 1 2

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1

3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 1 2

1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 4 1 2 2

PB82 PBS^ pB10 „,, PB12 PB13 PB14 pB1fi pB16 RB17 pBi8 ^ ^ ^

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 4 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 4 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 2

4 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 4 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 4 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 1 4 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 2

1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2

3 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 2 2 1

3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1

1 4 2 4 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1

4 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2

1

2 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 4 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 4 3 2 1 4 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 4 4 3 4 1 4 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1

1 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 4 4 3

2 2 1 4 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 2

1 2 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2

APPENDIX D.1

SAMPLE OF INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED

PRIOR TO VIDEO RECORDING

Interactivity and Computer-Based Learning

Working with Interactive Multimedia

Instructions

In this segment of the research you will be asked to work with a multimedia application. As you work through the various tasks, please articulate (by speaking out loud) your reactions and observations.

Step 1

Please examine the introductory screen from Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat and explain your interpretation of each of the interactive elements available - without activating that interaction - as well as any other features relating to the application.

Step 2

Now activate each of the interactions and describe whether or not the response provided by the system is consistent with your expectations.

Step 3

Please try and find an answer to the following question, using only the material available in Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat.

What was one of the major issues confronting Chinese gold-seekers on their arrival in Australia?

In answering this question, please describe the different interactions you encounter and

their effectiveness in relation to: a) navigation to and within the topic b) your exploration of that content c) engagement with the content d) your reflection on the overall effectiveness of the interactive experience.

Step 4

On completion, please make any other comments you feel about the use and effectiveness

of the interactive elements in Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat

APPENDIX D.2

SAMPLE CONTENT, TIME AND

INTERACTIVITY AUDIT DATA

Convicts, Andrew, PA17 Intro, 0:00, 0:52, 1 Menu, 0:52, 2:21, 3 Controls, 2:21, 2:24, 2 Controls, 2:24, 2:49, 5 Controls, 2:49, 2:52, 3 Controls, 2:52, 3:13, 7 Menu, 3:13, 3:16, 2 Menu, 3:16, 3:19, 3 People, 3:19, 3": 22, 2 People, 3:22, 4:09, 3 People, 4:09, 4:26, 4 People, 4:26, 5:14, 3 Origins, 5:14, 5:17, 2 Origins, 5:17, 5:46, 3 Origins, 5:46, 6:41, 4 Origins, 6:41, 6:51, 6 Time, 6:51, 6:54, 2 Time, 6:54, 7:16, 3 Time, 7:16, 7:31, 4 Time, 7:31, 7:46, 3 Q&A, 7:46, 7:49, 2 Q&A, 7:49, 9:21, 3 Time, 9:21, 9:25, 2 Resource,. 9:_25,. 9:_28,. 2 Search, 9:28, 9:31, 2 Search, 9:31, 9:56, 4 Origins, 9:56, 9:59, 2 Origins, 9:59, 10:31, 4 Search,. 10:31,. 10:34,. 2 Research, 10:34, 11:16, 3 Biblio, 11:16, 11:37, 3 Game, 11:37, 11:40, 2 Game, 11:40, 12:41, 6 Game, 12:41, 12:56, 1 Gold, 12:56, 12:59, 2 Gold, 12:59, 13:21, 4 Gold, 13:21, 14:45, 1 Gold, 14:45, 15:44, 4 Gold, 15:44, 15:47, 2 Gold, 15-: 4T, 16--.CF4', 1 Gold, 16:04, 17:25, 4 Gold, 17:25, 17:28, 2 Gold, 17:28, 17:46, 1 Gold, 17:46, 17:49, 2 Gold,. 17:49,. 18:00,. 3 Gold, 18:00, 18:03, 2 Gold, 18:03, 18:51, 1 Gold, 18:51, 19:11, 6 Game, 19:11, 19:21, 6 Controls,. 19:21, 19:.24,. 2 Exit, 19:24, 22:15, 6

APPENDIX D.3

SAMPLE STRUCTURES FROM SOFTWARE

DESIGNED TO CREATE REPRESENTATIONS

OF AUDIT TRAILS

colour and bar position if (w4=1) then

colour:=RGB(255.255,0) Lpre:=t_pre+secs

else if (w4=2) then colour:=RGB(0,0.170) t_nav: =t_nav+secs

else il (w4=3) then colour:=RGB(153,255,255) t_exp:=t_exp+secs

else if (w4=4) then colour.=RGB(0,238,0) Lpur:=t_pu<+secs

else if (w4=5) then colour:=RGB(238,0,0) t_man:=t_man+secs

else if (w4=6) then colour:=RGB(255.255.255) t_ref:=t_ref+secs

else if (w4=7) then colour:=RGB(Q.O,0) t_ecc: «=t_acc+secs

end if percentages p_pre:=(t_pre/tot_secsri 00 p_nav:=(t_navAot_secs)*100 p_e«p:=(t_exp/tot_secs)"100 P_pur: =(Lpur/tot_secsF1 00 p_man: Kt_man/tot_secs)"100 p_ref:=(t_ref/tot_STCs)"100 p_acc:=(t_accrtot_secs)"100

Overall Structure of Software to Produce Interactivity and Content Audits

iH, draw line

set x

mmm Level 3

B convicts

calculate - O O O O o

data times ix data set y1, y2 draw

m_ .1 sees

HBO Level 4

A tille < c > — o — o — o — o — o - • •

convicts dispossessed frontier oz-starnps nz-stamps

1

y1:=170 incr:=14

if (w1="lntro")then V2:=y1+11

else if [w1="Menu")then y1:=i>1+incr y2:=y1+11

else if (w1="People")then y1:=y1+incr*2 y2:=y1+11

else if (w1 ="Names") then y1:=y1+incr*3 y2:=ji1+11

else if (w1 ="0figins") then y1:=y1+incr*4 y2:=y1+11

else if (w1 ="Nation") then y1:=y1+incr*5 y2:=y1+11

else if (w1="Time")then y1:=y1+(incr*G) y2:=y1+11

else if M = " E vents") then y1:=y1+incr*7 y2:=y1+11

else if M="QSA")then y1:=y1+incr*8 y2:=y1+11

else if (wl ="6ame") then y1:=y1+incr"9

Id A

Structure and Algorithm for Positioning Audit Trail

APPENDIX D.4

SAMPLE OF PERCENTAGE INTERACTIVITY

RECORDED DURING VIDEO OBSERVATION

Presentation 100.000 36.879 36.111 30.769 30.233 26.943 26.531 26.131 25.743 20.884 19.549 16.561 16.404 15.029 12.968 12.652 12.560 11.927 11.530 11.159 11.087 9.269 9.204 9.155 9.107 8.725 8.681 8.241 8.202 7.692 7.461 7.429 6.833 8.634 8.601 8.365

17.062 15.996 15.945 17.427 16.077 16.031 17.448 17.399 17.222 17.175 20.690 20.330 20.155 20.103 17.528

Navigation 0.000 0.000 2.083 1.775 1.744 1.554 3.061 3.015 4.455 3.614 3.383 2.866 3.785 3.468 2.993 2.920 3.623 3.440 3.326 3.219 3.838 3.209 3.894 4.401 4.904 4.698 5.175 4.913 5.363 5.030 4.878 5.286 4.862 4.768 5.135 4.994 4.520 4.237 4.541 4.461 4.115 4.389 4.315 4.584 4.537 4.801 4.598 4.518 4.479 4.725 4.120

Exploration 0.000

63.121 61.806 52.663 53.488 47.668 46.939 47.739 47.030 57.028 53.383 60.510 59.937 63.295 54.613 53.285 52.899 55.275 53.437 54.936 54.584 62.032 61.593 61.268 60.946 58.389 58.097 55.151 54.890 57.692 58.967 58.714 54.008 52.964 52.760 51.311 46.441 43.538 43.400 42.635 39.330 39.218 38.555 38.447 39.074 38.966 37.312 36.664 36.348 36.254 31.610

Involvement 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.391 5.414 5.363 4.913 17.955 17.518 17.391 16.514 19.290 18.670 18.550 15.508 15.398 15.317 15.236 18.792 18.698 22.821 22.713 21.302 20.660 20.571 18.922 18.557 18.485 20.724 18.757 23.835 23.759 23.340 29.282 29.198 28.705 28.625 28.333 28.255 27.056 26.586 26.357 26.289 22.921

Manipulation 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.793 14.535 12.953 12.755 12.563 12.376 10.040 9.398 7.962 7.886 7.225 6.234 6.Q83 6.039 5.734 5.543 5.365 5.330 4.456 4.425 4.401 4.378 4.195 4.174 3.962 3.943 3.698 3.587 3.571 3.285 3.222 3.209 3.121 2.825 2.648 2.640 2.593 2.392 2.385 2.345 2.339 2.315 2.308 2.210 2.172 2.153 2.148 1.873

Accidental 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.881 10.714 10.553 10.396 8.434 7.895 6.688 6.625 6.069 5.237 5.109 5.072 4.817 4.656 4.506 4.478 3.743 3.717 3.697 3.678 3.523 3.506 3.328 3.312 3.107 3.013 3.000 2.760 2.706 2.696 2.622 2.373 2.225 2.218 2.178 2.010 2.004 1.970 1.964 1.944 1.939 1.857 1.825 1.809 1.804 1.573

Reflection 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.433 2.415 2.294 2.217 2.146 2.132 1.783 1.770 1.761 1.751 1.678 1.669 1.585 1.577 1.479 1.435 1.429 9.330 9.149 9.114 8.864 8.023 7.521 7.497 7.365 6.794 6.775 6.660 6.642 6.574 6.556 6.278 7.906 8.699 8.677

20.375

APPENDIX D.5

SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT OF PARTICIPANT

COMMENTS WORKING WITH INTERACTIVITY

PA10 00:00

01:00

02:00

03:00

04:00

05:00

06:00

07:00

Robert: Convict Fleet to D r a f f g n J W gross sections of t h e c ^ u j g ^

Primary colour. Navigation is fairTylas7\v]thro]^ there. O K , let's have a look and see what we v e got ^ " *" b a c k 8 r ° ^

[O] Can you tell m e what type of interactions? You did sav that but m „ M „™, i articulate what you expect to find behind or as a r e s u Z S s e ? " ° Controls, I expect the ... O K User Controls i« a mil ™,»r T' - " l s l ' 1 ^

contrast. Help - whatever help usefulness is. Resources -1 don't know that an additive resources for the product. Games - would be one or a couple of interac iv gamTs Q & A -a few questions jnd^njwereongojsjbjy^

couple of years change in there. The Origins - the origins of the participants The7ve

already mentioned Chinese, they've mentioned immigrants. The People - specific people

z i toorbeeop f: U f ? y I e s within the product-Twnk i "*ha-a io°k S f f i seems to be ... Interesting, song ... [O] So can you tell m e once now you've selected this whether what you're seeing is what you would have expected from that. This is what I would have expected to see, a cross section of the community, children adults. A fairly heavy Chinese influence which would have been predominant of that era - this is identified on previous screens. More people. O K we're also bringing in children we re not lust dealing with adults to identify G o a bit further, w e re going through ... a little bit confusing, because these people are actually in today s dress and I was expecting these people to be in the period of colonisation time. Goes through the same scenario of, cross-section of people am I going to the left or the right, do I get the same - going backwards OK. I guess'the inference here its, a broad band of people. Again, I'm just confused - oh, they've got roll-overs here too, OK. W h y have we got people perhaps not in their costume That's people from long

Might have a look at Origins, got some writing in the background too - nice watermark. That sound's irritating. That really is, that little high pitched sound as you roll-over it. Oh O K - we're identifying where they came from - they've come from various areas. SE Asia seems to be a fairly heavy influence. I didn't expect result with a roll-over. A h - this tells m e its not so much period, its just that inference they gave 'Convict Fleet - Dragon Boat' because the Thais didn't come on the convict fleet. Australian policy. Some sort of, no. O K , there's some sort of marker which doesn't do anything - strange

Topics - topics area. Again, not active - anything there. There's a sound - more of a convict sound than a Thai sound - that's not Thai singing. Might go over to Africa and see what happens, if there's any difference there. Algerians will do. That's just a sub-title of the page, not very much here. Got rid of that device that went nowhere. O h well let's hit a southern region, Sri Lankans. O K , that gives a links screen. We're going a bit further. They must have found more content with these people. Independence. So we're tracing the history back of these people

This indicator - A H ! - we've got something happening. Bit of a tug of war to get some more content on the screen. The old scroll bar looks a little ... perhaps they could have given you a little bit of an idea about dragging and pushing. Native song there. Maybe the Thai (?) just wasn't working. Origins. Let's have a look at the Timeline. Let's go back to where I thought the year was, 1790s. O K , certain areas are greyed out, so they're not active. O K 1793 - let's see what happens there. Chirpy sounds - don't like them

Free settlers. Everything's going to work. Are w e talking about 1790? But we've got a motor vehicle or something here - the Sydney Harbour Bridge 1920. This confused m e because I ... go back again ... went to somewhere in 1793 - why would I be getting a car? Reference to 1788 - alright. Very strange. [O] Can you tell m e a little bit again about the interactions that you've got there and how you're finding ...

08:00 The interactions - it's clearly a "mouse-up" roll-over - Ahh - that's something I hadn't looked at, this scroll-bar works to the little navigation box on the left, the navigation box and the scroll bar are equal, w e don't have to use this tug-of-war scroll bar we can actually just click into an area which will bring the various screens up - OK. Again, a bit misleading, because I... go back here, I did so to get back to 1793 ... obviously what

09:00

I'm allowed to do is navigate anything from 1793 onwards. Double response there -mistake. Images. O K - so I can basically come right up to these things.

I'm clicking on these things, I'm getting a graphic, I'm getting text. Short text, pretty crunchy. Tight referencing, close-cropped graphics. Keeping with the era, black and white. Antiquity. O K - Background doesn't mean anything ... just takes me to the start, presume .. there's a game down the bottom, Convict game ... Oh! Bit of an activity, bit of a game .. Play Game, Save game Providing me with the opportunity to go back and pick up somebody's previous game ... what am I supposed to do here ... click Open, click Open .. I guess I keep clicking Open until something happens ...

10:00 No. Looks like there's some sort of error message. It wasn't [O] Closed the system.

Closed the system, didn't really tell m e anything about the game, it assumed that there was a, maybe assumed there was a game there - I'm a little lost as to why it didn't... [O] Seems it didn't like you loading a game that wasn't there That's obvious. [O] Can w e move on to the second part now? Yeh, sure. O K . I'm getting most of this. Is this off the screen, or is this just describing it the second part?

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17.00

[O] Describing it as well. So do you want m e to go back to any navigation area - there's nothing on the sheet.

[O] No OK, so the navigation tools within the topic - found not as possibly as concise as they could have been, I felt that again I was ... the title of the C D "Convict Fleet to Dragon Boat" gave m e the impression I was going to start back in the early days and end up in the current era - the Dragon Boat, plus being the Vietnamese, the Asian settlers. I felt that I was perhaps being a little bit let down with the navigation The fact that I clicked on 1793 and in fact I was suddenly finding being misguided to something of a post World War I or World War II era very very quickly. I felt I might have been a little bit cheated - maybe the content wasn't there or maybe I didn't follow, maybe the screens didn't have precise enough instructions. Exploration of the content -probably answering much of that too - because I had an indicator bar here giving me a number of decades and that was my exploration I didn't have the, I didn't feel I was getting back what I asked for. The interaction or feedback to m e was I've got a broad band of years to give you and no matter where you click I'm going to start here and bring you to present. I perhaps would have, if this was a history lesson I perhaps would have

liked to have learned a littl more about 1793, 1902 and work m y way through rather than being forced through it. Content I liked, very

engaging, very informative, crisp - not going over the top. [O] Could you also do that for the second activity, which is to answer that question.

Sorry I may not have made that clear.

OK Maybe I've got to go to Origins, Chinese origins. East Asia. That's interesting. China's

moved Poor Singaporeans. Not really the answer. [O] I can give you some help. You were finishing up exploring the games, but you

didn't I'm interested in what you picked up from what you saw. Well I would have thought that the information I would get from the Chinese settlers would have gone back to the history side. But I know because China is not mentioned specifically I know I've been cheated because Singapore isn't that old I can only go one way or the other, I don't think we're going to find Bruneians, Burmese or Cambodians -1 might actually go into the Games area - I'm going to go into Gold, because this is more the area where the Chinese came in. N o w the usual response was straight forward The interaction was there. He's obviously a Chinese person, perhaps

not as could have beenJEnglishwith the long face. Let's play a new game.

Text as well as audio. So I know ... Mousewentoff - no back again ...

[O] Can you articulate what you are doing? . iA__tit_ ;f T O K , what I'm doing ... sorry. There's five characters here, I m trying o identify if I want one of them to lead m e who is going to lead me. I went to the first, the character on the left, who I first, might have been a ... Obviously he might have been the right character but the screen came up with a lot of 'gobbledegook' rather than text - and the

chap on the end didn't have anything to s^AjilM^lBM^mMMISSiJ^^.

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00

24:00

move forward, I'm trying to actually get a little bit ahead of the text, but the text is holding m e back, audio.

Until he's finished talking I'm not allowed to do anything.

[O] Are you getting any clues to the question in this case, or can you give any answers. There's only one answer I've picked so far - is the difficulty of the language. But that was evident at the beginning as w e had to find someone who could talk. [O] Could you articulate some of the bits about the interactions you've got available to you and what ... the impact they're having for you.

The interactions ... there's a lot of things happening, a lot of things on the screen I would have thought would do things for m e but I'm not actually able to find out what it is

I thought there'd possibly be an interaction here, the arm's up, but its doing nothing. Ah -1 had to find somebody, and this one's telling m e he's not speaking any language I can understand. And he's probably the only character. Ah, I can cheat ... because I've clicked on him and then clicked on the Chinese man I'm now able to proceed - the system's waiting for m e to respond. I'm curious as to what these little boxes are here So what's been presented on this screen is, you come in talking, but I have to click back on that subject again to make the screen active ... I've got no, the arrow on the screen means nothing, its telling me... it's locked until you have done something. Presume it's the slow loading of the audio, but I would have thought I could advance myself through this without waiting for it to complete. Everything seems to very very controlled. I'm not sure whether it's the M a c or whether its just the way the instructions are coming out. This is annoying me, this arrow sitting there that I can't click, these things are obviously the pot of gold. A h - I've lost the mouse.

A h - I'm getting some sort of action on the screen. I've obviously gone to the wrong place, or I've obviously gone to the wrong area to find the gold and I've been sent back or I've ... [O] What actually happened is that he was killed, and that was him going to heaven. Were you distracted while you were talking? Eh? Yes. I left him when he went to sleep. [O] Y o u didn't hear the scream ... w e might leave it there. The answer to the question, is the creatures of the wild and the language barrier.

[O] D o you have any other comments about the interactivity that was provided by this application and its impact on exploring the particular content. Any observations that you would like to make. The graphics, to m e the graphical interface took the whole presentation over. The interactivity, I felt as if I was being held back. I was only allowed to proceed at a certain pace. I felt I wasn't able to, the arrow that was here, I felt "I've seen that" I should be able to press forward, I should be able to speed up the motion. Possibly because of the audio, bit of an uncertainty, I felt all the way through felt that it was a controlled experience. Interactivity was not letting m e progress m y pace, Maybe in the Controls ... No, just music and sound. I had no opportunity to speed the environment up, perhaps was looking within the interactivity, yes if you want to go a bit further go faster, now that I've seen that, now that he's asleep, I now want to go to the next phase. Its too much on the internet, too much on the web. I'm moving I'm clicking I'm wanting to link, I'm wanting to use the links. The interface design was very very good, the interactivity was somewhat also out of whack by the years. I still go back to that point, that I wasn't sure, I was sure I would find something in 1793 and to find a photo of the 1920s. It stunned m e because thought I

was making a mistake. [O] The Outcomes from your actions were not anticipated? No, not consistent. [TV] Thank yon