In Beauchamp and Kennewell (2010) ‘Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning discussed the interactivity analysis framework which outlined interactivity areas that included; group interaction; authoritative interactivity; dialectic interactivity; dialogic interactivity and synergistic interactivity.
In my current context my students would be working in a Moodle Learning Management System (LMS) environment with a Blackboard Collaborate virtual classroom (VC) integration. When the interactivity framework is applied to this learning environment there is the possibility that within a teaching term all areas of interaction could be achieved due to the nature of the software involved and the constructionist and collaborative pedagogical style (Bower et al., 2010; Laurillard, 2008 and Roblyer, p 40-50, 2013) that I favour for my teaching.
Group interaction: As Beauchamp and Kennewell (2010) stated group interaction can be hard to track as often the teacher is not present. By using the collaborative tools within the LMS such as collaborative group wikis, discussion forums, group database, and automatic recording of group work in the Collaborate virtual classroom allows the teacher the ability to track and monitor the groups work and the level of interaction between individuals. Something that can be problematic in a physical classroom. In my current context the class was split into 4 groups which had members from around Australia. The groups had to work together weekly on tasks. They had a group wiki to add their thoughts to for a written record and had access to the VC as moderators where they could record their session and take screen grabs of their work from the system.
Authoritative interactivity: This is the ‘Sage on the Stage’ style of teaching where it is teacher directed, or content directed. In the LMS the content such as interactive multimedia (Roblyer, 2013) can be created that interacts with the grade book to record the students work through the interaction ideas can be clarified through a virtual classroom or text chat to expand on ideas that the student has worked through. In my current context I present ‘keynote’ style online sessions via the VC to my students that are linked to content in the LMS. In these sessions I expand on ideas and clarify points for my students.
Dialectic interactivity: Once the student has worked through the content outlined in the authoritative interactivity the teacher could then have the students work in groups around the key ideas. In my current context during a VC class the students are invited to use the Collaborates ‘whiteboard’ facility and chat area’s to respond to probing questions. It is very useful to use the whiteboard as it enables better group work in the class.
Dialogic interactivity: In dialogic interactivity the student has more of a voice in the lesson, with the teacher becoming more of the ‘Meddler in the Middle’ supporting the students in-class engagement. In my current context my students have had to present on topics such as effectively facilitating online where they have presented content and posed questions to the class group to facilitate the discussion around their topic. They then reflected on this through their wiki spaces and in the discussion forums
Synergistic interactivity: In adult education synergistic interactivity is often seen as the ‘norm’ rather than the exception. This is especially true with some users of LMS who ‘set and forget’ the course letting the students get on with their learning. Synergistic interactivity independent reflective activities that students do in a whole class setting (Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2010). In my current context the teacher becomes the ‘Guide on the side’ with students running sessions in the VC and facilitating discussions with-in the LMS to further develop their knowledge and ideas of the topics being taught.
In my assignment there is a blend of all five points. However, I have focussed more on the group interaction, dialectic interactivity; dialogic interactivity and synergistic interactivity rather than the Authoritative interactivity.
Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033
Bower, M., Hedberg, J.G., Kuswara, A., (2010), A framework for Web 2.0 learning design, Educational Media International, 47 (3), 177-190, DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2010.518811
Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal Of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9056-2
Roblyer, M. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. Harlow: Pearson.