First of all, on Mike's [Spector, 13 Nov 95] comment about interactive neutrality--I agree. I think I made some comments on this in the first set of responses, but since then it has occurred that we too often see one component of our vast field as being THE way to go. For example, there have been many Learner Control studies with a range of findings, and too often we take those findings and accept them as appropriate to ALL instructional settings. However, if you do a brief review of these papers, the findings range from pre-schoolers to adults--and rarely is there an acknowledgment that the LC/PC dichotomy may not apply to different age groups, etc., the same with constructivism/instructivism--and why not use BOTH in a piece of courseware? Remember, we're the smart humans who have control over those dumb machines!
[quoting Dalgarno, 13 Nov 95] Do you think that Hyperlinked Interactivity is an example (or subset) of Object Interactivity?
Definitely not. I was thinking of Hierarchical Interactivity being represented by products such as Living Books--click on the letterbox, the frog jumps out. Hierarchical Interactivity is when the "click" takes you off somewhere else in the application. I guess a glossary word which you can click and a definition comes on as an overlay would be Object Interactivity.
I don't think Support Interactivity needs to be a separate category. I think it is likely to fit into the Hierarchical Interactivity or Object Interactivity category depending on the method of delivery.
Possibly. As my thoughts are dynamic at the moment, I think these categories will require some redefining. However, from the user's perspective, an interactive request for support would appear to be different from an Hierarchical Interactivity or Object Interactivity. However, if the object was a HELP button and some context-sensitive help appeared, then yes, it is Object Interactivity. You may like to refer to a paper I put together with John Hedberg which looks at some of these issues with respect to continua of various learner control dimensions.
Do you think Construct Interactivity, Simulation Interactivity, and Non-Immersive Contextual Interactivity are actually a continuum, with system control over the goals at one end and complete freedom to explore the environment at the other end?
I think I should use a word other than Construct for this class of interactivity, as it may be confusing for the theorists. In this instance Construct Interactivity would be a variation of Update Interactivity--I was thinking of it like putting together a piece of equipment, rather than constructing knowledge about something. For Simulation Interactivity and Non-Immersive Contextual Interactivity, I agree.
The problem with all of these tools, however, is that it is difficult to use them to produce some of the "higher" levels of interactivity described by Rod.
I disagree--the problem is not the tools, but the level of skill of the user. Perhaps we should institute the ITForum Challenge Cup--build a "high" interaction with a "low" development tool, etc.
I think it's true to say that most Multimedia Developers and specifically Instructional Developers currently use tools like Hypercard, Toolbook, and Authorware, which are primarily designed for the development of "Instructivist" software, using the simpler forms of interaction.
I think that the lack of "Constructivist" authoring tools is one of the major problems of our field.
No, those software tools are OPEN--what is closed is the mind of the developers who have been indoctrinated by various instructivist principles--that is why I said it is a forgotten art--magicians, come forth!