Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:233] RE: (A) WHAT IS INTERACTION?
From: Sally Mavor (sallymavor@ip.pt)
Date: Wed 30 Aug 2000 - 12:17:39 MEST
From: "Sally Mavor" <sallymavor@ip.pt> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:233] RE: (A) WHAT IS INTERACTION? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:17:39 -0700
Bob Leamson puts forward:
"Interacting" means that each of the two entities has an effect on, or
changes in some way, the other"
Sanjaya Mishra offers:
Interactivity: It is the function and features of the teaching learning
system (...) to respond to human action)
Interaction: it is the element of human dimension that makes learning
complete by providing one-to-one or one-to-many sharing of experience and
knowledge
Brent Muirhead introduces the idea of "meaningful" as a measure of the
quality of interaction.
........................................................
Given the differences in direction of these contributions, I would argue
that it is worth sticking to a dictionary definition of interaction as the
anchor word for a collocation (word partnership):
e.g. "Interact: to have an effect on each other or something else by being
or working close together"
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
This supports Bob's view (with which I most sympathise) of interaction.
However, way back in the annals of Distance Learning literature, Moore
observes:
"Interaction is another important term that carries so many meanings as to
be almost useless unless specific submeanings can be defined and generally
agreed upon"
MOORE, M.G (1989) 'Editorial: three types of interaction' American Journal
of Distance Education, vol.3, no.2 pp.1-6
In which case, could we (as a group) discuss the idea that social
interaction could serve as an umbrella term for a range of different
interaction types which require a collocation for their clearer definition
and understanding?
For example, could social interaction not usefully include:
"informational interaction";
"reflective interaction"
"critical interaction"
Drawing on (and adapting) Feenberg's description of moderator functions, we
could also infer the following interactions:
"Contextualising interaction": opening discussions, setting norms and
agendas.
"Monitoring Interaction": prompting and recognition (referring explicitly to
participants, reassuring and valuing contributions).
"Meta Interaction": meta commenting - "to remedy problems in context, norms
or agenda, clarity, irrelevance, and information overload" and weaving "to
summarise the state of the discussion and to find unifying threads in
participants´ comments; it encourages these participants and implicitly
prompts them to pursue their ideas". (1989:33)
FEENBERG, A. (1989) The Written World: On the Theory and Practice of
Computer Conferencing in Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance
Education (eds.) MASON, R: KAYE, A:, Oxford, Pergamon Press
As we work towards a clearer understanding of the range of interactions
required for supporting effective learning, could we also begin to
articulate the different communicative and cognitive purposes (more
precisely, perhaps than the term 'meaningful') of the different interaction
types and the corresponding roles of the moderator?
Best regards,
Sally Mavor
sally mavor
Escola Superior de Educação de Leiria
sallymavor@ip.pt
_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the IFETS-DISCUSSION mailing list.
For more information go to http://www.valdosta.edu/listproc/
______________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu 31 Aug 2000 - 22:56:55 MEST