Interactivity in Multimedia Learning I 1615

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. Definition

New York: Macmillan. The literature on multimedia learning offers a number
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New
of definitions of interactivity, each emphasizing
York: Century psychological series.
Waelti, P., Dickinson, A., & Schultz, W. (2001). Dopamine responses different aspects of the concept. This inconsistency
comply with basic assumptions of formal learning theory. is due in part to the fact that the term interactivity is
Nature, 412, 43–48. used in a broad range of fields, including advertising,
the arts, information systems, communication,
marketing, and educational psychology. Across these
fields, three main approaches can be distinguished:
Interactive System (1) interaction in human communication, stemming
from a sociological tradition, (2) computer-mediated
As opposed to noninteractive systems and media, inter- human communication, originating in mass commu-
active systems and media require user input within nication approaches, and (3) human–computer inter-
a larger governing system of rules for functionality action, derived from computer science but also applied
and message transmission. in the field of educational technology and the learning
sciences. I
Definitions from these different perspectives agree
that interactivity requires two fundamental conditions:
Interactive Virtual Reality (1) at least two participants must interact with each
other, and (2) the actions of these participants must
Learning Environments include an element of reciprocity, that is, change needs
▶ Virtual Reality Learning Environments to occur on both sides: The actions of one party trigger
responses from the other, which lead in turn to changes
in the first. Johnson, Bruner & Kumar (2006) further
specify that it is not only reciprocity that is required for
interactivity, but also responsiveness – actions and
Interactivity reactions on both sides must be related, relevant, and
▶ Action-Based Learning sustain the continuity of the interaction.
▶ Video-Based Learning In the context of multimedia learning, defining
interactivity from the perspective of human–computer
interaction seems most appropriate. Applying the two
fundamental conditions of interactivity identified
above allows for a general definition of the concept of
Interactivity in Multimedia interactivity:
Learning " Interactivity in the context of computer-based multime-
1 1 dia learning is reciprocal activity between a learner and
JAN L. PLASS , RUTH N. SCHWARTZ , STEFFI HEIDIG
a multimedia learning system, in which the [re]action of
(NÉE DOMAGK)2
1 the learner is dependent upon the [re]action of the system
Consortium for Research and Evaluation of Advanced
and vice versa. (Domagk, Schwartz & Plass 2010).
Technologies in Education (CREATE), New York
University, New York, USA This definition emphasizes the dynamic relation-
2
Learning and Interactive Media, Department of ship between the learner and the learning system. It
Education, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany further acknowledges that a multimedia learning envi-
ronment is not interactive per se, but rather that fea-
tures of the environment have the potential to engage
Synonyms the learner. The learner must release this potential by
Interactive learning systems; Interactive media; Inter- responding to system activity in a meaningful way
active multimodal learning environments (Kennedy 2004).
1616 I Interactivity in Multimedia Learning
Theoretical Background
With the advent of readily accessible computer tech-
nology in the 1980s came the anticipation of new
possibilities for its use in education, in particular its
capacity for providing interactive learning experiences.
Interactivity, it was predicted, would allow learning
materials to be individualized in an unprecedented
manner, with opportunities for learners to choose con-
tent, level of difficulty, and mode of presentation, as
well as to receive customized feedback, elaboration,
and assessment (Hannafin 1989). As a result of indi-
vidualization, it was believed, learner engagement
would increase and learning outcomes would improve.
Hannafin (1989) suggested that such improvement
might be quantitatively based, arising from the number
of opportunities to respond and receive feedback, or
qualitatively based, resulting from the manner in which
interactive environments support cognitive processing.
Early interest in interactivity as a critical compo-
nent of multimedia learning was consistent with an
historical emphasis on active learning and learner par-
ticipation in education. Such discussions have contin-
uous, well-established roots in educational theory and
philosophy, with emotional and behavioral as well as
cognitive engagement often emphasized as basic to
learning. For example, both the seventeenth century
thinker John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the
eighteenth century suggested that children’s eagerness
to learn could be a powerful force in their education. In
the early years of the nineteenth century, Swiss educa-
tor Johann Pestalozzi stressed that children should
interact with specific physical objects in order to foster
development of abstract ideas; his disciple Friedrich
Fröbel conceived of the idea of the modern kindergar-
ten, designed around activities involving a graduated
series of manipulative materials and tasks. To these
educators, physical actions were critical in
the development of the child’s intellect. Similarly,
early twentieth century educational theorists such as
Maria Montessori and John Dewey ascribed great
importance to interacting with concrete objects and
engaging in active pursuits in order to develop abstract
thought. Dewey cautioned, however, that physical
activity in itself is not sufficient; for learning to occur,
the mind must also be fully engaged. Vygotsky, in the
same time period, as well as Bruner, somewhat later in
the twentieth century, emphasized that cognitive activ-
ity is, in general, situated in interactions between the
individual and the environment, including experi-
ences, perceptions, actions, language, and culture.
Constructivist approaches to learning, which share
the assumption that the learner is an active and respon-
sible agent in the construction of knowledge, are the
most recent expression of these ideas. Interactive mul-
timedia learning environments, which offer, or even
require, a newly active role for learners, seem
a natural fit for such approaches (Schwartz 2010).
Contemporary views of interactivity in multimedia
learning continue to emphasize many of the same
strengths initially heralded. The introduction of inter-
active features is believed to promote the active engage-
ment of learners, allowing learner control of various
elements of instruction as well as offering targeted
prompts, scaffolding, and feedback (Renkl and
Atkinson 2007). The interactive features most com-
monly discussed in theory and investigated in current
empirical studies include learner control, such as
pacing or manipulation of content; guidance; and feed-
back. Although various findings identify general bene-
fits of interactive environments, the generalizability of
such results suffers from the lack of a broadly adopted
definition of interactivity and from the absence of
a widely accepted method of operationalizing interac-
tivity in multimedia learning environments. The lack of
a standardized approach has resulted in several distinct
lines of research, such as studies that compare interac-
tive to “traditional” learning environments, studies in
which interactive features are either present or absent,
or studies that examine variations of specific interactive
features.
Important Scientific Research and
Open Questions
Various approaches to the operationalization of inter-
activity have been proposed. Most fall into one of two
broad categories: technological and functional perspec-
tives or psychological and learner-centered perspectives.
Technological classifications of interactivity focus
on the learning system, operationalizing it in terms of
delivery media (e.g., web, videoconferencing, VoIP),
input devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse, touch screen,
controllers) or features provided (e.g., hypertext, sim-
ulations, multimedia). Functional approaches focus
not only on the affordances of the learning systems,
but also on their potential to engage the learner in
behavioral activities. Prominent taxonomies of

interactivity from a functional perspective have been
introduced by Schwier and Misanchuk (1993) as well as
Sims (1997).
Psychological perspectives on interactivity shift the
emphasis to the learner rather than the learning system.
Early approaches that address learners’ cognition spec-
ify instructional strategies to be implemented in inter-
active media (e.g., Hannafin 1989; Jonassen 1985).
Recent discussions of interactivity in multimedia learn-
ing contend that a system-centered approach is of only
limited use for research on the effectiveness of interac-
tivity; it is not actions within the system, but the cog-
nitive processes elicited which are of primary
importance (Renkl and Atkinson 2007). The resulting
typologies of interactivity, however, continue to incor-
porate aspects of the functional approach rather than
focusing on the learner’s cognitive processes.
Both functional and psychological approaches to
operationalizing interactivity aim at classifying learn-
ing environments as more or less interactive, with the
assumption that a higher degree of interactivity may
facilitate learning. However, this assumption is
contested; a cognitive load perspective, for example,
suggests that, under some conditions, increased inter-
active options could impose a level of extraneous cog-
nitive load that might impede learning.
Viewing interactivity as a dynamic process between
a learner and a learning system suggests that
approaches should not be limited to either the
affordances of the learning system or the cognitive
processes of the learner. A process model of multimedia
interactivity that incorporates the learner’s behavioral,
cognitive, and affective activities as well as the
affordances of the learning system and characteristics
of learners, such as prior knowledge, self-regulation,
and affective traits, were introduced by Domagk et al.
(2010), based on an earlier model by Kennedy (2004).
The model, known as INTERACT, comprises six com-
ponents that are linked by continuous feedback loops:
the learning environment, the learner’s behavioral
activities, cognitive and metacognitive activities, emo-
tional and motivational states, learner characteristics,
and the learner’s mental model. Consistent with his-
torical views of engaging learners in their own learning,
this model includes behavioral and emotional as well as
cognitive factors. The INTERACTmodel can be applied
to inform research and to reconceptualize typically
discussed constructs in the context of interactivity in
Intercultural Issues in Music Education I 1617
multimedia learning such as learner control, feedback,
and guidance.
Cross-References
▶ Computer-Based Learning
▶ Constructivism
▶ Emotions and Learning
▶ Interactive Learning Environments
▶ Interactive Learning Tasks
▶ Learner Characteristics
▶ Learner Control
▶ Motivation and Learning
▶ Multimedia Learning
References
Domagk, S., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Interactivity in I
multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 1024–1033.
Hannafin, M. J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instruc-
tional technologies: Psychological perspectives. Canadian Jour-
nal of Educational Communication, 18(3), 167–179.
Johnson, G. J., Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2006). Interactivity and its
facets revisited. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 35–52.
Jonassen, D. H. (1985). Interactive lesson designs: A taxonomy.
Educational Technology, 25(6), 7–17.
Kennedy, G. E. (2004). Promoting cognition in multimedia interactiv-
ity research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15, 43–61.
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Interactive learning environ-
ments: Contemporary issues and trends. An introduction to the
Special Issue. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 235–238.
Schwartz, R. N. (2010). Considering the activity in interactivity:
A multimodal perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, New York Univer-
sity, New York. Dissertations & Theses, New York University
(Publication No. AAT 3404551).
Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). Interactive multimedia
instruction. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human
Behavior, 13(2), 157–180.
Intercultural Development
▶ Intercultural Learning
Intercultural Issues in Music
Education
▶ Multicultural Issues in Music Instruction and
Learning