One of the foundation concepts in instructional design and other parts of the field of education are the types of interaction that occur in the educational process online. In 1989, Michael G. Moore first categorized three types of interaction in education: student-teacher, student-student, and student-content. Then, in 1994, Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena expanded on this model, adding student-interface interactions. Four years later, Anderson & Garrison (1998) added three more interaction types to account for advances in technology: teacher-teacher, teacher-content, and content-content. Since social constructivist theory did not quite fit into these seven types of interaction, Dron to propose four more types of interaction in 2007: group-content, group-group, learner-group, and teacher-group. Some would argue that “student-student” and “student-content” still over these newer additions, and to some degree that is true. But it also helps to look at the differences between these different terms as technology has advanced and changed interactions online – so I think the new terms are also helpful. More recently, proponents of connectivism have proposed acknowledging patterns of “interactions with and learning from sets of people or objects [which] form yet another mode of interaction” (Wang, Chen, & Anderson, 2014, p. 125). I would call that networked with sets of people or objects.
The instructional designer within me likes to replace “student” with “learner” and “content” with “design” to more accurately describe the complexity of learners that are not students and learning designs that are not content. However, as we rely more and more on machine learning and algorithms, especially at the systemic level, we are creating new things that learners will increasingly be interacting with for the foreseeable future. I am wondering if it is time to expand this list of interactions to reflect that? Or is it long enough as it is?
So the existing ones I would keep, with “learner” exchanged for “student” and “design” exchanged for “content”:
- learner-teacher (ex: instructivist lecture, learner teaching the teacher, or learner networking with teacher)
- learner-learner (ex: learner mentorship, one-on-one study groups, or learner teaching another learner)
- learner-design (ex: reading a textbook, watching a video, listening to audio, completing a project, or reading a website)
- learner-interface (ex: web-browsing, connectivist online interactions, gaming, or computerized learning tools)
- teacher-teacher (ex: collaborative teaching, cross-course alignment, or professional development)
- teacher-design (ex: teacher-authored textbooks or websites, teacher blogs, or professional study)
- group-design (ex: constructivist group work, connectivist resource sharing, or group readings)
- group-group (ex: debate teams, group presentations, or academic group competitions)
- learner-group (ex: individual work presented to group for debate, learner as the teacher exercises)
- teacher-group (ex: teacher contribution to group work, group presentation to teacher)
- networked with sets of people or objects (ex: Wikipedia, crowdsourced learning, or online collaborative note-taking)
The new ones I would consider adding include:
- algorithm-learner (ex: learner data being sent to algorithms; algorithms sending communication back to learners as emails, chatbot messages, etc)
- algorithm-teacher (ex: algorithms communicating aggregate or individual learner data on retention, plagiarism, etc)
- algorithm-design (ex: algorithms that determine new or remedial content; machine learning/artificial intelligence)
- algorithm-interface (ex: algorithms that reformat interfaces based on input from learners, responses sent to chatbots, etc)
- algorithm-group (ex: algorithms that determine how learners are grouped in courses, programs, etc)
- algorithm-system (ex: algorithms that report aggregate or individual learner data to upper level admin)
- system-learner (ex: system-wide initiatives that attempt to “solve” retention, plagiarism, etc)
- system-teacher (ex: cross-curricular implementation, standardized teaching approaches)
- system-design (ex: degree programs, required standardized testing, and other systemic requirements)
Well… that gets too long. But I suspect that a lot of the new additions list would fall under the job category of what many call “learning engineer” – so maybe there is a use for this? You might have noticed that it appears as if I removed “content-content” – but that was renamed “algorithm-design,” as that is mainly what I think of for “content-content.” But I could be wrong. I also left out “algorithm-algorithm,” as algorithms already interface with themselves and other algorithms by design. That is implied in “algorithm-design,” kind of in the same way I didn’t include learners interacting with themselves in self-reflection as that is implied in “learner-learner.” But I could be swayed by arguments for including those as well. I am also not sure how much “system-interface” interaction we have, as most systems interact with interfaces through other actors like learners, teachers, groups, etc. So I left that off. I also couldn’t think of anything for “system-group” that was different from anything else already listed as examples elsewhere. And I am not sure we have much real “system-system” interaction outside of a few random conversations at upper administrative levels that rarely trickle down into education without being vastly filtered through systemic norms first. Does it count as “system-system” interaction in a way that affects learning if the receiving system is going to mix it with their existing standards before approving and disseminating it first? I’m not sure.
So – that is 20 types of interaction, with some more that maybe should have been included or not depending on your viewpoint (and I am still not sure we have advanced enough with “algorithm-interface” yet to give it it’s own category, but I think we will pretty soon). Someone may have done this already and I just couldn’t find it in a search – so I apologize if I missed others’ work. None of this is to say that any of these types of interactions are good or bad for learners – they just are the ones that are happening more and more as we automate more and more and/or take a systems approach to education. In fact, these new levels could be helpful in informing critical dialogue about our growing reliance on automation in education as well.
Matt is currently the Learning Innovation Coordinator with the UT Arlington LINK Research Lab. His research focuses on Learning Theory, Innovation, and learner empowerment. Matt holds a Ph.D. in Learning Technologies from the University of North Texas, a Master of Education in Educational Technology from UT Brownsville, and a Bachelors of Science in Education from Baylor University. His research interests include instructional design, learning pathways, sociocultural theory, heutagogy, virtual reality, and open networked learning. He has a background in instructional design and teaching at both the secondary and university levels and has been an active blogger and conference presenter. He also enjoys networking and collaborative efforts involving faculty, students, administration, and anyone involved in the education process.