Rod has suggested three dimensions for viewing interactivity, and I believe these are headed in a useful direction. As I understood his remarks, these dimensions are: engagement, control, and interactive concept. Rod indicates that the first dimension refers to the extent to which the learner is involved with the content; the second refers to the extent to which the learner is involved with instructional decisions; the third refers to the "type of interaction which might be expected under the varying conditions defined by the model."
I guess the third dimension was less clear to me than the other two--being a flat-lander, prostrate before the holy grail. What I was thinking was that Rod's dimensions might fit nicely with what we had in mind with our system dynamics based learning environment. My question is this: Is the third dimension to be construed as the extent to which the learner is involved in designing the learning environment? This is not necessarily the same as what I understand to be the second dimension, which involves the extent to which learners are involved in selecting and sequencing and perhaps also in viewing and responding decisions.
Jonassen and others have used an active design activity as an integral part of a course (have learners design a learning environment for some topic as an instructional activity), and this is exactly what Paal and I [ITForum #9] were trying to suggest.
In any case, I very much agree with Rod's comments that there is something of value in both the C&I camps which should be used when appropriate. I do not regard these as fundamentally different camps which define all design activities once one has chosen sides--which is what someone seemed to be suggesting in this discussion.