Review by: Reichert, Raimond (2004-07-29)

Though the importance of “interactivity” in learning environments is often stressed, there has been inadequate analysis of how interactivity can be achieved. This article focuses on human-computer interactivity, not on human-human interaction through computer-mediated communication, and proposes a classification of interaction types from a developer’s perspective. The article also includes a brief literature review of other conceptualizations of interactivity.

The developer’s classification of interactivity includes the following types:

1. Object Interactivity refers to the basic concept that when a user clicks on an object, there is some form of audio-visual response.
2. Linear Interactivity is also often termed electronic page-turning, meaning linear navigation through content. Its use as a major form of interaction is discouraged.
3. Hierarchical Interactivity typically refers to a menu which offers access to the underlying content.
4. Support Interactivity ranges from simple help messages to complex tutorial systems.
5. Update Interactivity provides users with a computer-generated response to their input and ranges from simple question-and-answer formats to complex conditional responses.
6. Construct Interactivity is an extension of this concept and requires the learner to manipulate or construct objects to achieve specific goals. Such interactions require significantly more design and implementation effort.
7. Reflective Interactivity alludes to situations where text responses are to be provided to the users answers.
8. Simulation Interactivity is closely linked to Construct Interactivity and extends the role of learner to that of controller or operator. This type of interactivity will also require significant design and implementation effort.
9. Hyperlinked interactivity lets the user access hyperlinked information. While technically easy to implement, the challenge is to design the navigation in such a way as to avoid the lost-in-hyperspace phenomenon.
10. Nonimmersive Contextual Interactivity transports users into a microworld which models their work environments and has them undertake tasks which reflect those of their work experience. This form of interactivity also requires significant effort.

As the author notes, the implementation of interactive learning environments can be perceived as an art form. It requires a comprehensive range of skills which probably only a team of experts in pedagogy, software developers, and human-computer interface specialists can achieve. This requirement implies that interactivity remains a tough challenge as cross-disciplinary collaboration is quite demanding.

The focus of this article is on the developer’s technical perspective. We have also reviewed an article on a interactivity classification from the learner’s perspective: Schulmeister, Rolf (2003). Taxonomy of Multimedia Components: A Contribution to the Current Metadata Debate. Studies in Communication Sciences. Studi di scienze della communicazione, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 61–80.