Instructional Interactivity Endeavor And Spiral Dynamics
Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and Spiral
Dynamics
Murat Kahveci1
Abstract
It is commonly accepted in most educational research communities that delivery of instruction accompanied
by interactivity will increase learning and improve instruction in practice. This article discusses operational
definitions and levels of interactivity on the basis of the education literature (particularly in the field of
computer-based instruction, cognitive science, and science education). However, in the literature, definitions
and forms of interactivity are often confined by instructional media, such as computer programs and
telecommunications technologies. The Spiral Dynamics model can be considered in an attempt to base
conceptual parameters for the operation of interactivity on terms of human psychology and ability of
learning.
Key-words: Interactivity, interaction, knowledge construction, cognition, spiral dynamics, computer-based
instruction.
Interactivity and interaction are two terms that have been used very often in the
literature of science, science education, computer science, educational technology,
distance education, curriculum and instruction, and psychology. This paper aims to
focus on the meaning and levels of interactivity and interaction in education in
particular. Wagner has situated both terms (i.e. interactivity and interaction) under the
process of instructional delivery in the context of distance education. Wagner defines
instructional delivery as dealing with the media and methods of transmitting
information and instruction. On the other hand, in the science education literature, there
is a relatively new and different epistemology called constructivism, referring to the
nature of knowledge as the individual’s own construction through the process of
negotiation and consensus building . On the basis of constructivist theory, science does
not exist as a body of knowledge separate from the knowers. Science knowledge
evolves through a set of socially negotiated understandings of events and phenomena.
As a result, knowledge is accepted by the scientific community as viable because of its
coherence with other understandings and experimental evidences. It appears not to
matter what epistemology or instructional medium is in the center of the learning
knowledge (i.e. either “instruction” or “the teaching experience”), the interaction of the
individual with the subject matter is vital in the process. But firstly, what do interaction
and interactivity refer to explicitly in the context of education? Secondly, what are the
levels of interactivity?
Unfortunately, in the education literature, there is not much written about a
settled view of either interactivity or interaction . There are operational definitions of
both terms, as well as many attempts to determine levels and characteristics of
1 Murat Kahveci, Doctoral Candidate in Science Education, Department of Middle and Secondary Education,
College of Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, U.S.A.,
mkk8653@garnet.acns.fsu.edu.
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol.20(1) 2003
12
Murat Kahveci
interactivity and interaction in the context of computer-based instruction and distance
education. Indeed, in these attempts, interactivity is essentially medium-specific (e.g.
videodisk), somewhat arbitrary, and not very descriptive . There remain many
unresolved questions about the nature of interactivity . Thus, the operational definitions
and given meanings are generally context-dependent, and fluctuate from one meaning to
another. For example, Kirsh builds his argument about the concept of interactivity
mostly as it applies to the design of multimedia learning environments.
There is no surprise that human cognition has many dimensions or about the
way that the learner interacts with content and instructional medium. As a result, we can
conclude that the ultimate desired interactivity and interaction emerge from the
nonlinear, multidimensional, and complex dynamics of human psychology and
cognition. From now on, instead of interactivity and interaction, I will use either terms,
referring to the same meaning, because the ultimate goal of interactivity or interaction is
the learning of the individual regardless of where (i.e. instructional medium) and at
what level (i.e. from reactive to mutual or from the beige vMEME to the turquoise
vMEME in the Spiral Dynamics context) it can happen. By doing this, I will be
compressing the conceptualization of both terms (i.e. interactivity and interaction) of
Wagner into one (i.e. interactivity or interaction). However, in terms of one’s learning
this compression will make our reconceptualization of interactivity more clear. In the
process of the reconceptualization of interactivity, I will not try to come up with a
complete definition of interactivity because interactivity is an instructional parameter
that provides progression within the instruction and learning process, and due to its
multidimensionality it will take different forms from one situation (i.e. one person, one
group, one instructional medium, one instructional technology, one culture… etc.) to
another. Rather, the multidimensionality and the levels of interactivity can be
understood by pondering over humans’ psycho-social and organizational structures
from an interior perspective (i.e. our psycho-social and organizational human systems).
Graves sought to get to the mind of the matter and explore why people are different; in
the process, he postulated the Spiral Dynamics model (i.e. waves of existence). As Beck
and Cowen (1996) quoted from Clare W. Graves:
Briefly, what I am proposing is that the psychology of the mature
human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating, spiraling process
marked by progressive subordination of older, lower order behavior
systems to newer, higher-order systems as man’s existential problems
change.
Because the Spiral Dynamics model is relatively new for the education
community, it is worthy to give a brief summary of what the premises of the
model are.
Spiral Dynamics
Spiral Dynamics is a model of “self” and the Spiral journeys through “the
waves of existence” (the journey refers to the psychological, social, and organizational
development of the individual). The Spiral has several quantum (i.e. distinct) levels.
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol.20(1) 2003
Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and Spiral Dynamics
13
However, the levels are mosaics, meshes, and blended structures. The levels do jump
from one to another as a result of perturbations, such as a change in life conditions, but
this distinct journey does not happen without passing through the interfaces between
upper and lower levels. The Spiral is not symmetric either. The levels of self-existence
are referred as “vMEMEs”. According to Beck and Cowan , a vMEME transposes itself
into a world-view, a value system, a level of psychological existence, a belief structure,
organizing principle, and a mode of living. A vMEME contains the basic package of
thought, motives, and instructions that determine how we make decisions. Beck and
Cowan identify the qualities of vMEMEs as follows (1) vMEMEs manifest the core
intelligences that form systems and impact human behavior, (2) vMEMEs impact all of
life’s choices, (3) vMEMEs express both healthy (for-better) and unhealthy (for-worse)
qualities, (4) vMEMEs are structures of thinking, and (5) vMEMEs can brighten and dim
as life conditions change. Table 1 summarizes the trajectory of the evolution of the
vMEMEs.
Table 1. The evolution (rolling out) of the vMEMEs. Adapted from
From less complex
natural, technological, and human
To more complex
environments…
From surviving in the through the awakening of new
To surfing the beyond
bush
minds and consciousness levels…
the Internet
From a small piece of via migrations across land and
To the global village
land
information terrain
and cyberspace
The vMEMEs are color coded (as shown in Figure 1) as used by Don Beck and
Chris Cowan (1996) and represented in a matrix in the early studies of the Clare W.
Graves (Beck & Cowan, 1996, p. 45-47) in pairs of letters, as well. On the matrix, letter
pairs (BO, CP, DQ, ER, FS, GT, and HU) identify each of the value systems (i.e. levels
in the Spiral). Each level consists of the forces: one force is the Problem of Existence
(designated by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) and the other force is the Coping Systems
that work in those environments (coded by N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, and U).
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol. 20(1) 2003
14
Murat Kahveci
Figure 1. The Spiral Dynamics Model. Adapted from Beck & Cowan . The level of
each vMEME is color coded; transparent borders in each spiral level refer to diffusion of
the values of existence from one level to another (i.e. no distinct quantum levels rather
continuum change in the Spiral). The complexity of the Spiral gets more sophisticated
from the first level (the Beige vMEME) to the higher ones.
The first six levels of Spiral Dynamics are “subsistence levels” labeled by
“first-tier thinking.” The second three levels are called “being levels” labeled by
“second-tier thinking”, which occurs as a result of revolutionary shift from the first-tier
thinking. I will mention a brief description of all eight waves (i.e. levels) .
The First-Tier “Subsistence vMEMEs”
1. (AN) Survivalistic (Beige vMEME). The first level of the Spiral. Uses habits and
instincts just to survive. Food, water, warmth, and safety have priority. Distinct self is
barely awakened or sustained. Forms into survival bands to perpetuate life.
2. (BO) Kin Spirits (Purple vMEME). The second awakening (i.e. level), in which
thinking is animistic, magical spirits, good and bad. Forms into ethnic tribes. This
level’s basic theme is to keep the spirits happy and the tribe’s’ nest warm and safe.
Operating system: rely on chief, group, or magic to find security and safety for the
people.
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol.20(1) 2003
Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and Spiral Dynamics
15
3. (CP) Impulsive (Red vMEME). The third awakening, the first emergence of a self
from the tribe; breaks free from any domination or constraint to please self as self
desires. Enjoys self to the fullest without guilt or remorse. The basic theme is what you
are and do what you want. Operating system: be tough and depend on the self to fend
off the aggression of others.
4. (DQ) Truth Force (Blue vMEME). The fourth awakening, in which one sacrifices
self to the transcendent Cause, Truth, or righteous pathway. Life has meaning and
direction with outcomes determined by an all-powerful Other or Order. The Order
enforces a code of conduct, based on eternal, absolute principles. Laws, regulations, and
discipline build character and moral fiber. Operating system: find a truth that offers
answers delivered through a chain of command.
5. (ER) Scientific Achievement (Orange vMEME). The fifth awakening, in which
progress is made by learning nature’s secrets. Change and advancement are inherent,
within the scheme of things. Optimistic, risk-taking and self-reliant people deserve their
success. Highly achievement-oriented, especially toward materialistic gains. The basic
theme is act in your own self-interest by playing the game to win. Operating system:
Entrepreneurism and plans to reach goals to better the self and some others.
6. (FS) Human Bond (Green vMEME). The sixth awakening, seek peace within the
inner self and explore the caring dimensions of community. Spread the Earth’s
resources and opportunities equally. Reach decisions through the consensus process.
Refresh spirituality, bring harmony, and enrich human development. Subjective,
nonlinear thinking; shows a great degree of effective warmth, sensitivity, and caring for
the Earth and all its inhabitants. Operating system: join others to build consensus and
share feelings to make things better now.
The Second-Tier “Being” vMEMEs
7. (GT) Flex Flow (Yellow vMEME). The seventh awakening, live fully and
responsibly as what you are and learn to become. Life is a kaleidoscope of natural
hierarchies, system and forms. Flexibility, spontaneity, and functionality have the
highest priority. Differences can be integrated into interdependent, natural flows.
Operating system: live according to internal principles in search for most functional
way to be.
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol. 20(1) 2003
16
Murat Kahveci
8. (HU) Global View (Turquoise vMEME). The eighth awakening, experience the
wholeness of existence through mind and spirit. The world is a single, dynamic
organism. Universal order, but in a living, conscious fashion, not based on external rules
(blue) group bonds (green). Turquoise thinking uses the entire spiral; sees multiple level
of interaction, and detects harmonics. Operating system: cooperate with world-wide
networks to address issues impacting all life forms.
9. Coral vMEME. This level of the Spiral is still not clear to articulate.
Due to its quantized spiral (i.e. the Spiral expands or collapses around a center,
but the levels are distinct) and dynamic structure, the Spiral Dynamics model has very
nice properties to project the evolution of human thinking (or existence) as life
conditions change. In this process, we should understand that none of the values
systems is inherently better or worse than any other. Each system has developed in
response to a specific set of problems and calibrated to address those conditions. As
educators, the important implication of the dynamics in the Spiral is that social and
cognitive (i.e. “within”) interactions of the individual shape the quality of learning. The
dynamics in the classroom may be harmonized in such a way that the mosaics of the
varieties (in vMEMEs) of learners result in individuals’ viable knowledge construction.
That is why Spiral Dynamics is a robust model to reconceptualize the characteristics
and the levels of interactivity.
The Construct of the Operational Definitions of Interactivity and Interaction
The Collins Cobuild learner's dictionary (Rammell, et. al ,1996).. definition of
the root “interact” are (1) when you interact with another person, you communicate with
each other as you work or spend time together, (2) when computers interact with people
or other machines, information or instructions are exchanged, and (3) when one thing
interacts with another, the two things affect each other’s behavior or condition.
Although the dictionary definitions cover roughly the most operational definitions given
in the education literature, the most difficult discussion relating to the nature of
interactivity is still due to the lack of complete understanding of the term . When
considering different contexts, such as instructional medium, there exists a diversity in
the meaning of the instructional definition of interactivity. I will focus on the meaning
of interactivity in the education literature as it is the context of (1) computer-based
instruction (CBI), (2) cognitive science, and (3) social science.
Interactivity in the Context of Computer-Based Instruction (CBI)
Jonassen defines interactivity as referring to the activities performed by the
learner and the computer. The conception of interactivity traditionally promoted by
instructional technologists is based on the programmed learning model, which entails
the presentation of instructional stimuli, followed by some form of question by the
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol.20(1) 2003
Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and Spiral Dynamics
17
technology, which presumably elicits a response by the learner, and finally the rejoinder
or feedback to the learner by the technology, in which the process is iterative as a
whole. There is a harmony between the learner and the computer by means of
questioning and rejoining the responses. The quality of interactivity depends on the
following three criteria (1) the type of input required of the learner while responding to
the computer, (2) the way in which the computer analyzes the learner’s response, and
(3) the nature of the action taken by the computer in response to the learner . A crucial
point about the nature of interactivity suggested is the requirement that each of the
involved parties respond to the actions of the other in an intelligent way. There appears
to be a very difficult task to be done adequately by the multimedia designers, which is
to reach the interactivity level that is desired for effective instruction. To emphasize the
difficulty of this feature of interactivity, Kirsh comments that:
Computer interfaces are rarely interactive because the programs that
drive them are rarely intelligent enough to behave as tacit partners.
Despite the fashionable talk of dialogue boxes and having a
conversation with your computer, there is little cooperation to be
found. As a user, I am obliged to adapt to the computer; it does very
little in the way of adapting or accommodating to me. Current
software agents embodying simple expert systems may change this
situation in the future. But so far, intelligence, particularly social
intelligence, is largely absent from interfaces.
The taxonomy of interactivity suggests that the most fundamental level of
interactivity should provide (1) level of intelligence of design, (2) type of
interactive program, (3) level of processing, (4) task analysis, and (5) modality of
response. Moreover, Schwier & Misanchuk suggest a revised taxonomy of
interactivity such that (1) an interactive program should have three levels of
interactivity (reactive, proactive, and mutual), (2) within each level specific
functions are to be present (confirmation, pacing, navigation, inquiry, and
elaboration), (3) at each functional level, types of transactions need to be
enumerated (space bar/return key, touch screen target, touch screen ray trace,
mouse click, mouse drag, barcode, keyboard-key response, keyboard-construction,
voice input, and virtual reality interface).
Wagner states that, in distance learning, interaction functions as an attribute of
effective instruction, while interactivity functions as an attribute of contemporary
instructional delivery systems, particularly those that use telecommunications
technologies. Interactions are reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two
actions, which mutually influence one another. An instructional interaction is an event
that takes place between a learner and the learner’s environment. The purpose of
instructional interaction is (1) to respond to the learner in an intended way, and (2) to
change his or her behavior toward an educational goal. Types of instructional
interaction are (1) to increase participation, (2) to develop communication, (3) to
receive feedback, (4) to enhance elaboration and retention, (5) to support learner
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol. 20(1) 2003
18
Murat Kahveci
control/self regulation, (6) to increase motivation, (7) for team building, (8) for
discovery, (9) for exploration, (10) for clarification of understanding, and (11) for
closure. Interactivity, on the other hand, appears to emerge from descriptions of
technological capability for establishing connections from point to point (or from point
to multiple points) in real time.
Thus, in Wagner’s (1989; 1997) proposition, although both interactivity and
interaction have the role of instructional delivery, the construct of the terms differs in a
manner so that interaction tends to involve in process concerns related to technology
integration strategies and application tactics, while interactivity tends to be linked with
product concerns related to technology systems, hardware, and software.
Barretto et al. refer to interactivity as one of the most widely used new
emerging terms in the process of the Internet development. Interactivity is defined in the
context of Internet use as an ‘activity and/or action between individuals and/or
machines’. On the basis of this definition, interactivity is granted for the main
component of the Internet because the network will only grow and expand if inter-
action, an action among participant individuals, the inter-agents, takes place. Notice that
interactivity and interaction in meaning are equalized in this approach. In the use of the
Internet, Muirhead emphasizes the human involvement in the nature of interactivity as
follows: “interactivity involves participation by the learner in on-line communication
between learners and with their class tutors.”
Interactivity in the Context of Cognitive Science
Kirsh comments on how perception is in itself interactive. In visual
perception, the movement of the eyes, head, body, all must act in a coordinated fashion.
The coordination can be provided by continuous feedback emerging from the senses.
The nature of interactivity requires cooperation, the involved parties must coordinate
their activity or else the process collapses into chaos; all parties exercise power over
each other, influencing what the other do, and usually there is some degree of
negotiation over who will do what, when, and how. Complex, dynamic coupling
between two or more “intelligent” parties as a whole is what is referred to as
interactivity.
Notice that this definition implies that interactivity can occur if intelligent
parties are involved in mutual events. Thus, good software can hold interactivity as long
as it provides intelligent feedback to the learner (i.e. by means of, so to speak, artificial
intelligence). By revamping the linear decision cycle model to a nonlinear process,
Kirsh (1997) suggests the following interactivity elements coupled with each stage of
decision cycle model: starting with “clear clutter”, (1) goal-“exploratory actions”, (2)
intention-“create reminders”, (3) detailed plan-“structure affordances”, (4) execute plan,
(5) perceive-“complementary actions”, (6) interpret perception-“epistemic actions”, (7)
compare to goal/intention-“perceive reminders”, and the cycle ends with
“maintenance”.
According to cognitive speed theory , learners have the cognitive capacity to
process speech at twice the rate at which a lecturer speaks. While only half of the
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol.20(1) 2003
Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and Spiral Dynamics
19
cognitive capacity is needed to listen, the other half can be used to engage in internal
conversation. Unless learners are actively mentally engaged during lecturing along with
the appropriate interaction, their renegate thought patterns may dominate their cognitive
activity. The need for interaction embedded in instruction is vital to maintain a high
level of learning.
Interactivity in the Context of Social Science
The process of viable knowledge construction requires social interactions
among learners—the teacher is also a learner in this context through interaction (i.e. due
to mutual responses between a student and the teacher)--and between learner and
teacher. The power of interaction among students and the teacher increases the
likelihood of the construction of viable knowledge. Constructivism suggests that
learning is an adaptive process in which the learner’s extant knowledge is modified in
response to perturbations that arise from both personal and social interactions .
Constructivism assumes the relative multiple social realities, recognizes the mutual
creation of knowledge by the viewer and the viewed, and promotes interpretations of
subject’s meanings . Von Glasersfeld supports the philosophy (i.e. epistemology) that
knowledge has to be actively built up by each individual knower. Scientific hypotheses
are tested in the experimental world where they either are or are not verified.
Experimental worlds belong to the individual. However, during social interaction, they
are adapted from one to another. As a result of reciprocal actions, the experimental
worlds lead to an equilibrium state where new knowledge is confronted with prior
experiences, and thus a consensus can be achieved. This cycle produces what has been
referred to as viable knowledge. In the classroom climate, students interact with the
teacher and other students as they negotiate the viability of their knowledge
constructions . Studying the dynamics of such interactions will increase the students’
scientific knowledge and endorses educators in a better position for high-quality
instruction.
Simpson and Galbo propose that interaction is central to the learning process.
Interaction creates bodies of knowledge that provide the bases for school subjects, and
that this knowledge is sustained and transmitted through ongoing encounters. Although
the philosophical point of view differs from former ones (i.e. the theory of knowledge
construction by Von Glasersfeld and Tobin ), the nature and the function of
interactivity refer to the same meaning.
Interaction is defined as all manner of behavior in which individuals
and groups act upon each other. The essential characteristic is
reciprocity in actions and responses in an infinite variety of
relationships: verbal and nonverbal, conscious and nonconscious,
enduring and casual. Interaction is seen as a continually emerging
process, as communication in its most inclusive sense .
Knowledge is dynamic and always being reformulated in the light of new input
experiences . This dynamic process can be sustained by means of human interaction.
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol. 20(1) 2003
20
Murat Kahveci
However, we need to understand the nature of interactivity from an internal (i.e. human
psychology and cognition) point of view. The ability to interact with others varies from
person to person. By superimposing the Spiral Dynamics model on interactivity, we
can come to a better understanding of how differences in personalities affect the way
that humans interact with their surroundings inclusively.
Discussion and Conclusion
Each vMEME is a holon, which transcends and includes its predecessors. What
this means is that, for instance, the green vMEME can grasp the orange vMEME, if life
conditions change or any perturbation occurs. Let us assume one person operating in the
green vMEME is looking for a job, which requires a high level of goal and achievement
oriented series of competing actions in the current market. The job-seeking process
reflects the values of the orange vMEME. The abrupt change in the life conditions of
this person awakens the orange vMEME level, whose values are known by the person,
in the Spiral as a downward movement (i.e. compression of complexity). Theoretically,
this is not a problem for this person because the orange vMEME is a prior life
experience of him/her and can be grasped to operate at that level for a certain time or
the rest of his/her life with no problem. Once the life conditions change (let’s say, s/he
got a new job), then there is a high probability they will jump to the green vMEME, and
cater for the values of life at that level back again. In the first-tier thinking level, each
vMEME thinks that its worldview is the correct one. The first-tier vMEMEs react
negatively with other first-tier vMEMEs unless the person has reached the second-tier.
On the other hand, second-tier thinkers are fully aware of the interior stages of
development and value all vMEMEs . Although the journey in the Spiral is not
dependent on a person’s age, it is very unlikely to see a middle-school child at the level
of second-tier thinking.
The levels of interactivity (especially for instructional settings) can be
considered as the superposition of each holon (or vMEME). This automatically maps the
nature (or characteristics) of interactivity in any situation for any person. As the
vMEMEs change depending on life conditions or any perturbations that interfere with an
individual’s values, the nature of interactivity will shift from one level to another. We
do not know how many times these jumps or the resting times at one level occur from
one day (or one course, one class, and one teacher) to another. We construct viable
knowledge through social interaction and consensus . The quality of interactivity
determines the level of learning (i.e. the higher interactivity, the more learning ).
However, according to the Spiral Dynamics Model, one person operating at the
level of the green vMEME can be accounted for the values of consensus seeking and
global thinking, which are the characteristics of interactions described in the studies of
Von Glasersfeld (1993) and Tobin (1993). The green vMEME and the above vMEMEs
in the Spiral are only 11 percent of the adult population . In this case, having a highly
interactive and consensual classroom culture is likely to be very rare or idealized for the
rest of the 89 percent of the world population. It appears that the ultimate goal of
education should be leading students to higher vMEMEs in the Spiral Dynamics so that
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol.20(1) 2003
Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and Spiral Dynamics
21
they (we as a whole) can benefit from the fruits of rich instructional interactivity.
Leading student populations to higher levels of vMEMEs through interactivity is a very
systematic process. On the basis of the values as described in the Spiral Dynamics
Theory, I propose seven levels of interactivity that have particular values emerging from
the levels of human psychology in the process of learning:
BO Level Interactivity
This level operates according to the values of the purple vMEME (BO). The
forms of learning: paternalistic teacher; step by step sequences, rituals and routines;
small group nests; use of magic and fantasy.
CP Level Interactivity
This level operates according to the values of the red vMEME (CP). The forms
of learning: immediate rewards for learning tasks; powerful teacher who allows for
toughness; rejects rigid structures; depend on the self.
DQ Level Interactivity
This level operates according to the values of the blue vMEME (DQ). The
forms of learning: indoctrination from rightful authority; punishment for errors;
moralistic direction; possibility of deferred rewards in future.
ER Level Interactivity
This level operates according to the values of the orange vMEME (ER). The
forms of learning: trial-and-error experiments where success brings anticipated gains;
competitive gaming with high tech, high status tools.
FS Level Interactivity
This level operates according to the values of the green vMEME (FS). The
forms of learning: explore feelings and learn by watching others’ actions; share here-
and-now experiences to enhance interpersonal skills.
GT Level Interactivity
This level operates according to the values of the yellow vMEME (GT). The
forms of learning: self-directed access to knowledge and materials; individual develops
without compulsiveness or fear; eclectic and diverse interests.
HU Level Interactivity
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol. 20(1) 2003
22
Murat Kahveci
This level operates according to the values of the turquoise vMEME (HU).
The forms of learning: interaction with whole-Earth networks to expand awareness and
explore diverse ways of being and thinking; intuitive learning.
Notice the beige vMEME (AN) is not listed in the levels of interactivity
because at that level, intentional learning hardly occurs; survival is the only priori, there
is no awareness of the self either. These seven levels of interactivity perpetuate learning
as human existence and embrace the nature of interactivity in the way that a knower
may exhibit.
Finally, seeking definition of interactivity in one or two sentences would
always be “playing with uncertainty”. Rather, the levels (from BO to HU) of
interactivity seem to be useful quality criteria for instructional interactivity and perhaps,
exclusively what one can do with the dissemination of the complexity hidden in human
nature. Despite its complexity, interactivity has become a crucial property in education
in order to increase viable knowledge construction by individuals.
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol.20(1) 2003
Instructional Interactivity Endeavor and Spiral Dynamics
23
Acknowledgements
I thank Sherry A. Southerland2, Martin Balinsky3, and Ajda Kahveci4 for
discussions.
Author’s Notes
1
A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the World Conference on
Educational Multimedia , Hypermedia, and Telecommunications 2004, held in Lugano,
Switzerland. The proper citation is as follows: Kahveci, M. (2004). Instructional
interactivity endeavor and the Spiral's Value MEMEs. Proceedings of the World
Conference on Educational Multimedia,Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2004(1),
1387-1391. [Online]. Available: http://dl.aace.org/15587.
2
Sherry A. Southerland is currently a faculty member at the Department of
Science Education, Florida State University.
3, 4
Martin Balinsky and Ajda Kahveci are currently doctoral students at the
Department of Science Education, Florida State University.
Etkileşimli Öğretim Hedefi ve Sarmal Dinamik
Özet
Pratikte öğretimin uygulanması sürecinde etkileşimin öğrenmeyi artırdığı ve öğretimin kalitesini yüksettiği
eğitim araştırmacılarının büyük bir çoğunluğu tarafından kabul etmektedir. Bu makalede, özellikle bilgisayar
destekli eğitim, zihinsel gelişim, ve fen bilimleri eğitimi alanlarını içeren günümüz eğitim literatürü
gözönünde tutularak, etkileşimin fonksiyonel anlamları ve dereceleri tartışılmıştır. Fakat literatürde
etkileşimin anlamları ve formları, çoğunlukla bilgisayar programları ve telekominikasyon teknolojileri gibi
öğretimin sağlandığı ortamlar ile sınırlandırılmaktadır. Sarmal Dinamik modeli temel alınarak, etkileşimin
insan psikolojisi ve öğrenebilme kabiliyetine bağlı bir konsept olarak anlaşılması ve geliştirilmesi
düşünülebilir.
Anahtar sözcükler: Interaktivite, etkilesim, bilgi yapılanması (constructivism), zihin, Sarmal Dinamik,
bilgisayar-temelli öğretim.
Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Vol. 20(1) 2003
Document Outline
