Gulcin,

Glad to see that you are interested in investigating the area of Interaction & Interactivity! You have already probably reviewed this literature, but I have provided a brief review of some of the literature in this area...let me know if this supports your work & I will push you more.

Interaction Defined
Wagner (1994) provides a general definition of instructional interaction as an event that takes place between a learner and the learner’s environment with an underlying purpose to change the learner's behavior toward an educational goal. Wagner (1994) further defines the construct of interaction as possessing the following attributes: (1) feedback, (2) elaboration, (3) learner control / self-regulation, and (4) motivation.

Feedback, serving as information to the learner, can provide useful information for performance results (Knowledge of Results-KOR), Knowledge of Performance-KOP) and for augmenting instruction (elaborative feedback). The elaboration of instructional material links content to the learner's past experiences. These learner-contextualized links facilitate encoding of information into memory and enhance future recall. Learner control and self-regulation corresponds to the fundamental characteristics of both elaboration and feedback. Learner control refers to the ability of the learner to selectively interact with course content (time-on-task, depth, range, and media) en route to individualizing course presentation. Self-regulation is the metacognitive strategy that a learner will use to engage with instructional material (contextualize, organize, and reflect on information) and to conduct subsequent performance self-appraisal. Feedback is critical to both learner control and self-regulation. Continued motivation or the intrinsic willingness to learn is the final critical attribute defining the construct of interaction (Wagner, 1994).

Interaction Research
The overall empirical evidence supporting the use of interaction tools in DE appears equivocal, yet interaction remains central to the expectations of both instructors and learners (Berge, 1999). Vrasida & Stock-McIssac (1999) reported that course structure, prior experience with computer-mediated communication (CMC), and feedback were instrumental elements of the interaction construct and that interaction was fundamental for learners to socially construct meaning. Specifically, DE course structured elements (e.g., required online graded activities) led to more interactions and increased dialogue between study participants. In addition, study participants that possessed previous CMC experience were more likely to interact and participants that lacked CMC experience tended to be intimidated by both the technology, as well as the interactive communicative style inherent to the online environment (e.g., emoticon use). Finally, participants identified a lack of immediate feedback as discouraging. Immediate or timely feedback was found to be critical to maintain learner motivation and persistence. Technology may be able to support DE interaction, however, the instructional designer and course facilitators will ultimately need to ensure that the conditions for DE interaction exist and are supported in the learning environment.

Types of Interaction
The four types of interaction that are critical for DE learner success are:
· Learner-to-Content (Moore, 1989): The process of intellectually interacting with content to bring about changes in the learner’s understanding, perspective, or cognitive structure (Moore, 1989).
· Learner-to-Instructor (Moore, 1989): The interaction that attempts to motivate and stimulate the learner and allows for clarification and feedback of instructional content (Moore, 1989).
· Learner-to-Learner (Moore, 1989): The interaction that occurs between learners either alone, or in a group setting, with or without the real time presence of an instructor (Moore, 1989).
· Learner-to-Interface (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994): The process that the learner uses to develop proficiency with the course content’s mediating technology and delivery system (Hillman, et al., 1994).

References
Barry, M., & Runyan, G. B. (1995). A review of distance-learning studies in the U.S. military. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 37-56.

Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary web-based learning. Educational Technology, 39(1), 5-11.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Nielsen Media Research, Nielsen, A. C., & NetRatings, INC. (2000). Nielsen/NetRatings [Online]. Available: http://www.nielsen-netratings.com [2000, April 29].

Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 31-42.

Hughes, C., & Hewson, L. (1998). Online interactions: Developing a neglected aspect of the virtual classroom. Educational Technology, 38(4), 48-55.

King, J. C., & Doerfert, D. L. (1996). Interaction in the distance education setting [Online]. Available: http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/ssu/AgEd/NAERM/s-e-4.htm [2000, April 29].

Spitzer, D. R. (1998). Rediscovering the social context of distance learning. Educational Technology, 38(2), 53-56.

Shotsberger, P. G. (2000). The human touch: Synchronous communication in web-based learning. Educational Technology, 40(1), 53-56.

Vrasidas, C., & Stock-McIsaac, M. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 23-36.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 7-29.