Marc My Words: From Interactivity to Engagement

As I watched teenagers play an interactive video game, I noticedsomething interesting. Some were moving through the game rather quickly,seemingly distracted or uninterested in what was happening on the screen. When Iasked about this, they said they had been through the initial levels of thegame before and just wanted to get to higher and harder levels. At that point,their focus intensified.

I also had an opportunity to watch some adults move through aninteractive eLearning course and noticed similar behavior. Several were movingthrough the course quite quickly, as if they could care less. When I inquired,they told me they wanted to get to the part of the course they needed. Whenthey got there, they slowed down considerably and increased their focus.

In both of these cases, the game player and the eLearners’ involvementin the interactive activity—their personal investment—increased when theyarrived at a point where there was more interest and value in what they weredoing. Both the video game and the eLearning course were highly interactive—theteens and the adults were working through the challenges and activitiespresented—some of them quite complex—but until they got where they wanted tobe, they were not truly engaged.

Interactivity vs. engagement

Simply stated, the difference between interactivity and engagement isthis:

Interactivity= doing

Engagement= valuing

Video games and eLearning courses may be interactive, but they may notbe engaging. Let’s focus on eLearning. eLearning engagement goes beyond the interactivedesign of the course, as described in the four “T’s” of engagement:

1. Transacting. The nature of theinteractivity itself impacts the level of engagement. Going through themotions, however complex, may seem to the learner as just a series oftransactions needed to get to the end, especially if the interactions don’tappear (to the learner) to add much value. However, if learners can clearly seehow the interactions lead to learning outcomes that are relevant to them—that’re worth their time and attention—that’s much more engaging.
2. Timing. If the interactivity comes at atime when it is most valuable and most usable—the moment of need—it is likelythat learner engagement will go up. However, if it comes too soon or too laterelative to the need, there may be the same amount of interactivity but a lotless engagement.
3. Thinking. There is no doubt thatinteractive eLearning design should cause learners to think. But about what? Howto solve the challenge presented or how the challenge presented applies totheir real world? Both. This is a question of authenticity and relevance. Interactivitythat appears artificial or made up will be much less engaging than when itdevelops new awareness and insight, and builds stronger capabilities.
4. Transcending. A truly engaging eLearningexperience goes beyond the course itself. It does not have to focus only on instructionalactivities. It can ask the learner to do something of value offline, outsidethe course, and then come back to share what was learned. Even better, it canmotivate learners to actions after the course that reflects on the value theyreceived from it, including further learning. In other words, the course had areal, positive, and lasting influence.

Impact on instructional design

There’s nothing inherently wrong with interactivity; but when eLearningis interactive without beingengaging, that’s bad. Getting learners to willingly invest brainpower in acourse is much more important than what they actually do in the course. Givingthem value from the learning is much more important than giving them acompletion certificate. Motivating them to apply what they’ve learned is muchmore important than motivating them just to get the course over with.

In fact, an engaging eLearning program can be motivating, valuable,thought provoking, and actionable, even with very little observableinteractivity. Just like reading a great book, watching a terrific movie, or listeningto a captivating lecture, engagement does not have to be overt. So the nexttime you’re concerned with whether the learner has enough to do during the course, try thinking instead about whatwill make the learner change because ofthe course. Ask what would make the learner want to take the course,recommend the course, and value the time invested in the course. It’s thequality of the interactions, not the quantity. This should guide yourinstructional design.

Are you engaged, right now?

You’vealmost finished reading this article. Maybe you found it by searching the topicor my name. Maybe you got an email or a Twitter alert about it. Perhaps acolleague recommended it. No matter—the fact that you are at this point meansyou interacted with it. You might even click the “appreciate” button below, oryou may shrug it off, caring not a bit about the topic. But perhaps if you wereengaged you might think about it more. It might strike a chord with you or yourteam. It might move you to action; perhaps change something you are doing. Inother words, it has value for you. This is the difference between interactivityand engagement. In your eLearning endeavors, include the first but strive forthe latter.