As a designer trying to gain a better pedagogical understanding to support both teaching and design, my response pulls to design practice. The Interactivity aspect of the Bates and Poole (2003) SECTIONS framework relates very heavily to what I do but the definition focus differs a bit.
|Interactivity:||Does it move the learner beyond just reading, viewing and listening?||Consider:||End-user experience, interaction and feedback.||• Does this technology support interactions with peers, instructors and others associated or contributing to the learning tasks?
• Does this technology allow for sharing/collaboration with learning communities beyond registered course participants?
• Can people easily interact with the products/resources developed in the course?
The area I’d like to work in the future is post-secondary institutions for arts, design, dynamic media and/or applied technologies. In my case IxD can take the points noted above from SECTIONS and extend them to create more specific and very important questions with regards to appropriate re-design, selection and application :
1 ) How does this technology support interaction with peers and others, and does it do so in a way that uses the same/similar methods of communication and interaction as applicable in actual practice? (Does use the same interactions of the realm and support knowledge-building and practice?) Does it support the culture of the learners in the learning environment? Often I see technologies selected because they are what is known and easy to operate rather than selecting them because they speaking a ‘language’ that is connotative of, and cohesive with actual practice. Ideally I’d like to help design to make this aspect easier.
2 ) How can this technology be improved, modified, spliced with another or wielded to enhance the message? What are the critical intervention points of when these are best applied? How can this involve other communities that can enhance learning (are they ‘open’ and can this be used effectively?) In my scenario, we like to think that use-patterns can be redesigned for each learning environment to better support these goals.
3 ) Does the technology allow for the appropriate types of sharing and collaboration that are needed and used in the practice community? Are these easy or unwieldy? The ‘ease of interaction’ aspect and ‘moving the learner beyond viewing and listening’ are questions that relates to how I ended up in the MET in the first place. I’m interested in how social media and Web 2.0 tools can be designed-into a future breed of open-source LMS platforms. Maybe this is utopian but with the advancement of Web 2.0 APIs, I don’t think it’s impossible.
In sum, I don’t think it’s just teachers that “need frameworks and approaches that “sensitize [them to] the key factors that need to be taken into consideration in what is usually an ongoing process of decision making during course development and design” (Bates & Poole, 2003) but that designers can also aid this practice.
Bates and Poole. (2003) “A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology.” In Effective Teaching with Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pages 75-105.
Image source: Tobias Toft. (2010). Interaction 10 – Savannah-20. [Image file] Retrieved from Flickr under CC by 2.0. https://flic.kr/p/7CWocz