One of the central parts of my research was (is) interpersonal interactions. Given that interaction is now often more likely to mean ‘interacting with a computer’, I qualify interactions by pointing to the interpersonal nature of interactions between people. Later in my thesis, I attempt to define the distinctions between interactions between people and interaction with an artefact (ie a computer). I’m not sure that I have a clear picture of those differences, nor a good set of terminology that distinguishes them. However, there are distinct differences between the various forms of interaction. Hence the discussion of interpersonal interactions.
{Begin extract}
Interpersonal interactions – those between individuals – take many forms, which can have quite different consequences depending upon their intensity, duration, purpose and degree of shared understanding. [Shared understanding becomes quite important and is one of the facets of interaction that causes the sense of disquiet from applying the term to interactions with an artefact. Artefacts do not 'share' our understanding.] Each form of interaction may consist of negotiation between the individual and the social, that is, both the knowledge to be learnt and the social environment in which it is presented (Newman, Griffin and Cole, 1989). As an example, individuals learn through constructing knowledge and contextualising it with their peers or in the location of learning. Internet-based learning interactions are supported by the presence and permanency of text, the visual and perceptual qualities of the computer screen and associated physical environment, and the capacity to use previous utterances in responses, where applicable (Russell and Cohen, 1997). [I define utterances later.] However, the potential of these interactions can be weakened by the absence of many of the cues and clues that are inherent qualities of close interpersonal interactions, such as facial expression, linking modality of speech to utterances, and frequent opportunities for developing shared understanding through sharing and appraising utterances. It is through these kinds of face-to-face, interpersonal interactions that sociocultural views claim that intersubjectivity – shared understanding between participants – evolves most strongly (Rogoff, 1990, Wertsch, 1998). The value of proximity between a teacher and student is usually premised on the learner being able to understand what the teacher proposes, their point of view, thereby achieving intersubjectivity through a process of listening, making sense, raising questions and using responses to those questions to gain a greater shared understanding. Hence, from such a perspective, the degree by which internet-based interactions are able to foster intersubjectivity between teacher and learners is central to understanding its potential as a learning medium. Such an appraisal may open up consideration of how inter-psychological processes – those between individuals and social partners and artefacts (Vygotsky, 1978) – might be constructed in instances of human interactions and learning that are mediated by electronic technology.
{End extract}
Having reread this (for the umpteenth time), I still don’t think I’m clear on the definition of ‘interaction’. It was complex before we introduced computers and the Internet, and it’s so much more complex now. Interaction, interactivity, intersubjectivity, interpersonal, inter-psychological – these words become significantly more complex when we introduce ‘semi-intelligent’ artefacts. Mobile devices with ‘virtual reality’ apps blur the lines even more.
However, in a later post, I will be elaborating how interacting with a text book can be construed as interacting with the author, albeit in a limited fashion. Perhaps interacting with a computer is, in fact, interacting with the designers of the computer and the applications. I believe the treatment I did of those aspects was rather limited and perhaps this is one direction for future research.
References
Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989) The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press, New York.
Russell, A. L. and Cohen, L. M. (1997) The reflective colleague in e-mail cyberspace: a means for improving university instruction, Computers and Education, 29:3, pp 137-145.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society – the development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998) Mind as Action, Oxford University Press, New York.