Thanks you for the first reactions to the paper. If I read Tom [Reeves, 12 Nov 95] correctly, I am writing about something which officially doesn't exist! Well--lets keep going with this discussion of the virtual entity "interactivity."
First, the paper (in an expanded and modified form) will be soon available from the home page of DLPE--the Division of Learning and Performance Environments of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT):
The revised version will have examples as suggested by Tom as well as an expanded details on the Schwier & Misanchuk taxonomy and additional perspectives on "interactivity."
As a teacher and developer of interactive courseware for many years, I disagree with Harry--we are about H-C communications--I'm not sure that technology will ever be able to do what WE do better, but it can do things (instructionally) better that we might have difficulty with. For example, the vocational teacher who's students have difficulty understanding the operation of Thermostatic Control valves may benefit from a short, traditional instructivist CAL lesson which allows them to gain a better understanding of its functionality.
Is Drill & Practice repetitive drudgery? I think there are many out there who extol the virtues of drill--and there are many examples of students who become engaged in (my quotes) "boring, text-based drill items" simply because they are motivated to learn.
The idea of actually implementing our interactivity discussion into an interactive model is great (but who's got the time?). As an observation, how many teacher's of interactive multimedia actually use interactive multimedia in the majority of their classes?
I was interested that Tom sees this as an instructivist still clambering about the desert in search of the Holy Grail of tutoring--I have always perceived that the technology can best be used if the learner is allowed to develop (construct?) their knowledge through a series of dialogues/interactions with the instructional database. There is also considerable difference between developing a constructivist environment for children (say to discover/develop/create knowledge about prime numbers) and adults (for example, hazardous chemicals). In the latter case, it may not be practical to allow the learners to work in a constructivist environment. What I'm trying to say is that we should not see constructivism as THE way to use computers in learning (much in the same way as multimedia is often perceived as THE way to improve education), but as an approach which can be more appropriate in certain environments or content domains.
Finally, I think we can reach those higher levels through better ID and creativity. I still believe technology will never be able to replicate what we do, and that the goal of truly intelligent learning systems (from a hardware/software perspective) is but a dream. However, if the learner thinks that the machine is operating in an intelligent dialogue, then I argue that we have achieved an intelligent system--and it is interactivity which allows this to happen.