Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, 19:235 | Cite as

Interactive Learning Environments: Contemporary Issues and Trends. An Introduction to the Special Issue

  • Alexander Renkl
  • Robert K. Atkinson
Editorial

Many of the affordances associated with computer-based learning environments are due to their interactive nature. Such interactive learning environments do not merely present information like a book or an instructional video; instead, they permit learners to actively engage in order to learn.

Although at first glance it would seem clear what the terms “interaction” and “interactive” mean in the context of learning environments, there is, in reality, little agreement regarding these terms in the corresponding literature. There are almost as many different definitions as articles that attempt to illustrate these terms (see, e.g., Betrancourt 2005; Kennedy 2004; Kettanurak et al.2001; Mayer 2001; McMillan 2002; Rafaeli 1988; Wagner 1994). Whereas some characterizations of interaction detail how such an interchange between learners and a learning environment might occur (e.g., control over pace, having influence on what will be presented and how this is done), we propose a rather general...

References

  1. Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: Using interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review. DOI  10.1007/s10648-007-9055-2
  2. Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review. DOI  10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7.
  4. Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kennedy, G. E. (2004). Promoting cognition in multimedia interactivity research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15, 43–61.Google Scholar
  6. Kettanurak, V., Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. D. (2001). User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: An empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 54, 541–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. DOI  10.1007/s10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0.
  8. Mandl, H., Gruber, H., & Renkl, A. (1993). Misconceptions and knowledge compartmentalization. In G. Strube & K. F. Wender (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of knowledge: The German Wissenspsychologie project (pp. 161–176). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. McMillan, S. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingston (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 162–182). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review. DOI  10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
  12. Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational Psychology Review. DOI  10.1007/s10648-007-9048-1
  13. Quintana, C., Shin, N., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2006). Learner-centered design. Reflections on the past and direction for the future. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 119–134). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Sage annual review of communication research: Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (Vol. 16, pp. 110–134). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Robins, S., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Schema formation in analogical reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 529–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). Construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. DOI  10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3
  18. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86–97.Google Scholar
  19. Stahl, G., Koshmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–425). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 6–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wouters, P., Tabbers, H. K., & Paas, F. (2007). Interactivity in video-based models. DOI  10.1007/s10648-007-9045-4

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Psychology, Educational and Developmental PsychologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Division of Psychology in EducationArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations