In my last post on this blog (“Education Can Be In-Person, Distance Learning, Remote, or Hybrid, but What Matters Is That It Be ‘Without Distance’”), I wrote that “Interactivity is the key to reducing distances in education.” I also showed that, to reduce (or even eliminate) distances in education, more important than sharing the same physical space is reducing what’s called “transactional distance,” which can occur in both virtual activities and those carried out in close physical proximity. But I left open the discussion about the concepts of interaction and interactivity and how to apply them to reduce distances in education. This is where I’ll pick up again. So please join me now in this discussion on interactivity and in-person learning. 

 

The first important step when discussing the application or other issues related to a particular concept is to define it clearly. You may even disagree with the definition (and it is very common for there to be more than one definition—sometimes even conflicting ones—for the same academic or scientific concept), but at least it becomes easier to understand (and to agree with or disagree with) the arguments presented once you know the assumptions on which the author is basing their work. Therefore, I will present here my definitions of “interaction,” “interactive,” and “interactivity,” without claiming that they are universally accepted (or even that you will agree with them), but simply to facilitate understanding of the discussion that follows.

 

My definitions:

 

interaction: an act that provokes a reaction, or that reacts to something (or someone), causing changes in the states of those involved. 

 

interactive: something that allows for interaction.

 

interactivity: the latent and/or perceived (potential) level or intensity of interaction of something or someone.

 

I made a point of including “something” in the definition, because conceptualizations that attempt to distinguish between interactions “between humans,” “between humans and machines,” and “only between machines” complicate matters more than they help. With technology permeating our daily lives, we will increasingly interact with software and machines (or through technology) and separating human interactions from those involving technology would be as impractical as it is pointless. A study from the 1990s, published in the book*Media Equation*, has already shown that we interact with machines in the same way we interact with humans.

 

An interesting analogy—one that makes it easier to understand the concepts I use to discuss interactivity in education—is to relate them to something, let’s say, more “concrete”: radiation. Let’s take a look:

 

radiation: the transmission of energy through space by means of electromagnetic waves or particles. 

 

radioactive: something that produces radiation.

 

radioactivity: the level or intensity (potential) of something to produce radiation. 

  

Now that I’ve (I hope) made the concepts I’ll be working with clear, let’s move on to the discussions.

 

“Dialogue” is such an important concept that it is a topic dear to many renowned philosophers and educators, from Plato to Paulo Freire. Dialogue is a specific form of “interaction” in which there is mutual interest. There are countless pedagogical theories and methodologies that explicitly or implicitly place “dialogue” or interactivity as an important part of the learning process. You’ve probably already thought of some of them, right? The famous “active methodologies,” for example, are full of interactivity. Gamification, another technique that has been highly recommended for use in education (you can watch a talk I gave on this topic here ), cannot exist without interactivity. 

 

Michael Moore, when he introduced the concept of “transactional distance” in the article I mentioned in my previous post, identifies “dialogue” as an important factor in reducing the perception of distance. Moore’s theory offers a possible explanation for the correlation between interactivity and a reduced perception of distance. We can also engage in some pseudoscientific speculation to understand why “interactivity brings us closer”—for example, the fact that the technology enabling remote interactivity has existed for only a very short time relative to the extremely long span of human evolution, and that, therefore, our instincts are likely programmed to understand that “if I can interact with something or someone, it is because we are present in the same space or at a short distance that makes interaction possible.”

 

If you’re still not convinced, I ask that you try to recall some remote activity you’ve participated in (think of something like a chat, an online game, a virtual class, a technology-mediated collaborative project, or even a simple—and now almost obsolete—phone call). But not just any activity will do. It needs to be one in which you felt very present and engaged. Ready? Very good. Now see if you agree with me. I bet that in that activity you recalled, you felt there was interactivity, and that there were also moments when it didn’t even matter whether the people, characters, or objects you were interacting with were physically right beside you, kilometers away, or existed only in digital code—because what mattered was that you felt they were present. You were present in that activity! Am I right or not?

 

Well, I hope I’ve managed to make a convincing case for the importance of interactivity in the perception of presence. Presence (the perception of being there) does not depend on physical distance, but rather on interactivity and engagement—to the point where we forget that there is a technological medium at work bringing us closer together (or enabling interactivity). 

 

Notice that I’ve been emphasizing the term “interactivity” rather than “interaction.” Why is it important to make this distinction?

 

Because interactions do not actually need to take place for interactivity (the potential to interact) to be perceived.

Because interactivity alone is enough to give us a sense of being there in person.

Because it is not always feasible for all participants in a given activity to actually interact with one another.

Because it is possible to increase interactivity—and, consequently, student engagement—even in activities that are not very interactive, such as lectures. 

 

This subtle difference (that interactivity can be perceived even when no interaction actually takes place) makes all the difference! It’s one thing to plan an educational activity on the assumption that all participants must necessarily interact; it’s quite another to aim for everyone to perceive interactivity, even if not everyone actually interacts.

 

I’ll illustrate this with two clips from a really good movie (if you haven’t seen it yet, I recommend you do): “The Mirror Has Two Faces.” But feel free to watch the clips below—they don’t contain any spoilers. So click on the links below—I’ll be waiting for you to come back.

 

Scene 1 - Math Class 

Scene 2 - Literature Class

 

Back already? Thanks for coming back. So, what did you think? What sets the two classes apart, aside from their content? Both teachers know their subject matter very well and are passionate about it. But one of them is much closer to the students (okay, you could argue that walking around the classroom brings them closer; I agree, but if the class were online and the interactions were the same, there would still be a lot of engagement in that class, even if the number of interactions is very small relative to the number of students; you could also say that talking about something meaningful to the students engages them more than discussing abstract topics that are far removed from reality; I agree, but imagine the same content being presented in a lecture-style format, without any interaction).

 

Of course, interactivity isn’t the only factor that fosters a sense of connection, but its absence can lead to a sense of distance even in classes where, by definition, everyone is present—at least physically (consider the example of a scene from a film depicting an in-person class in which students do not feel any interactivity). In a remote activity, there is no such “forced” presence due to physical space, leaving only interactivity to foster a sense of presence among participants. 

 

Now I’m going to raise an interesting question. Would that in-person class—which lacks interactivity—be better or worse if it were made available as a pre-recorded lecture? 

.

.

.

Ready?

.

Here's my answer.

.

Most likely, the recorded version will be better, because the student will be able to pause, fast-forward, rewind, skip, and so on. Even if they watch the video lesson without doing any of these things, they’ll know they could if they wanted to. Therefore, they’ll feel more engaged with the content (of course, not with the teacher—but in the case of this example, they wouldn’t feel that way even in a physical classroom) and will participate in the video lesson with a greater sense of “presence.” On the other hand, a lesson with a lot of teacher-led interaction would work well in both a physical setting and a synchronous virtual environment. But what if we recorded that highly interactive class and published it as a video lesson? The perception of interactivity, of course, wouldn’t be the same, since the student would know they are unable to interact. However, out of empathy for the participants in the recorded class, they’ll perceive greater interactivity and become more interested and more engaged than in a lecture-style class without any interaction. To draw a comparison, TV shows—even recorded ones—often feature an audience in the studio, as this makes the remote audience feel closer to the action.  

 

Finally, I present the four factors that influence the perception of interactivity, according to Blenda Laurel in her book *Computers as Theater*:

• frequency: How often do opportunities to interact arise?

• scope: How many options are available when interacting?

• Significance: What impact does this choice have on the process?

• participation: the perception of being able to participate

 

So, when planning your next activity, think about when, how, and to what extent it provides participants with opportunities to participate—and also how meaningful that participation would be to them. You’ll see that this works better than the common-sense notion that the more interactions there are—even if they’re forced and don’t make much sense to the participants—the better.

 

Oh, before I sign off, let me pose another question for you to think about. We know it’s essential for our students to be present, whether in a virtual or physical setting. But there’s still room for improvement. What if, in addition to being present, students were engaged and immersed in the activity? Wouldn’t that be great? Well, that’s the topic we’ll discuss in my next post. Until then.

 

Learn more about the author:

 

 

Did you like this content? Share it on your social media: