memex

Nascent attempt at using Foam to curate and leverage a personal memex


Project maintained by djplaner Hosted on GitHub Pages — Theme by mattgraham

Taxonomy of student-to-content interactions strategies

Dunlap et al (2007) combine Bloom’s taxonomy with Stouppe’s (1998) categorization of content-specific interaction, and Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s Community of Inquiry framework (1999, 2001). They identify 10 content interaction types and then map them against Bloom’s.

Not sure of the use of Bloom’s is all that useful, but the interaction types might be useful for analysing different types of content media and associated authoring assemblages.

10 Content Interaction types

The 10 interaction types are described as (Dunlap et al, 2007, p. 23)

  1. Enriching interactions enable students to access information but do not convey information.
    • e.g. pop-ups, hot-words, links, forward and back buttons
  2. Supportive interactions help students understand and work with the material.
    • e.g. zoom functions, moveable ruler bars, calculators, search and query functions
  3. Conveyance interactions demonstrate to students the concept they are learning, or provide a way for students to apply their knowledge.
    • e.g. questions, simulations, games, what-if activities, process decision points
  4. Constructive interactions involve students in the organisation and mapping of their knowledge and understanding
    • e.g. building mental maps, knowledge trees, and organisation charts
  5. Triggering interactions lead to students recognising a problem or having a sense of puzzlement
  6. Exploration interactions encourage students to follow their own paths through content, delving deeper into areas of itnerest, accessing elaborative details, and so on.
  7. Integration interactions allow students to connect ideas and create solutions.
  8. Resolution interactions involve students in the applicaiton of new ideas and the assessment of solutions.
  9. Reflective inquiry interactions involve students in deliberation and action, such as having them ask penetrating questions, challenge assumptions, and carefully examine the implications of their actions.
  10. Metacognitive interactions encourage students to reflect on their own cognitive proces rather than the content of the processes, and use that self-awareness to control and improve cognitive processes.

References

Dunlap, J., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. (2007). Designing for Deep and Meaningful Student-to-Content Interactions. TechTrends, 51(4), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-007-0052-6