You are here:

Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and the Spiral’s Value MEMEs
PROCEEDINGS

, Florida State University, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Lugano, Switzerland ISBN 978-1-880094-53-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

A frequent argument in education literature is that delivery of instruction accompanied by real-time interactivity will increase learning and improve instruction in practice. The trend of the use of interactivity intensifies when content gets more abstract and instruction is delivered at a distance. Especially, teaching complex and abstract science concepts by the use of telecommunications technology signifies the meaning and appropriate levels of interactivity for instruction. However, definition and forms of interactivity are often confined by instructional mediums such as computer programs and telecommunications technologies. This article discusses the meaning of interactivity and levels of interactivity constructed in the education literature (in the field of computer-based instruction (CBI), cognitive science, and social science). It is concluded that the Spiral Dynamics (Beck & Cowan, 1996) can be considered as a comprehensive framework to base conceptual parameters for the operation of interactivity in terms of human psychology and ability of learning.

Citation

Kahveci, M. (2004). Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and the Spiral’s Value MEMEs. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2004--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1387-1391). Lugano, Switzerland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 12, 2024 from .

© 2004 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Beck, D. E. (1999). The Emergence of Memes as Organizing Principles in Human Nature . Texas: The National Values Center, Inc.
  2. Beck, D. E., & Cowan, C. C. (1996). Spiral Dynamics . Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
  3. Bork, A. (1982). Interactive Learning. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The Computer in the School. New York: Teachers Colle ge Press .
  4. Cezikturk, O., Kahveci, M., & Cirik, G. (2000). Interactivity in Mathematics and Science Education. Paper presented at the International conference on M/SET 2000: Mathematics / Science Education & Technology, San Diego, California.
  5. Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and Answers About Radical Constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education (pp. 23– 38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  6. Jonassen, D. H. (1985). Interactive Lesson Designs: A Taxonomy. Educational Technology, 26(6), 7- 16.
  7. Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware . Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Kahveci, M. (2001). The Summative Evaluation of the Ecoventures Program in Terms of Its Interactivity Component. Florida State University, Tallahassee.
  9. Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and Multimedia Interfaces. Instructional Science, 25(2), 79- 96.
  10. Muirhead, B. (2002). Quality in Distance Education: Focus on on-Line Learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(4) .
  11. Rammell, C., Wedgeworth, L., Brown, C., Combley, R., Hewitt, C., Raybould, H., Todd, J., & Williams, J. (1996). Collins Cobuild Learner's Dictionary . Scarborough, England: Morton Word Processing Ltd.
  12. Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., & Hook, K. S. (1997). Teaching Referents and the Warrants Used to Test the Viability of Students’ Mental Models: Is There a Link? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 223- 238.
  13. Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. New Jersey: En glewood
  14. Simpson, R. J., & Galbo, J. J. (1986). Interaction and Learning: Theorizing on the Art of Teaching. Interchange, 17(4), 37- 51.
  15. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A Forgotten Art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157- 171.
  16. Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivism: A Paradigm for the Practice of Science Education. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of Social Constructivism in Science Education (pp. 1 - 21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  17. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and Answers About Radical Constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education (pp. 23– 38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. Wagner, E. D. (1989). Interaction: An Attribute of Good Instruction or a Characteristic of Instructional Technology? Paper presented at the The Annual Meeting of the National University Continuing Education Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
  19. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Funtional Definition of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2).
  20. Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From Agents to Outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), New Directions for Teaching and Larning (Vol. 71). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  21. Wilber, K. (2000). Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambala Publications, Inc.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts