In this edition of the column I offer a different perspective to the simulation/dissimulation dyad discussed in the previous edition by looking at simulation as an internal and cognitive phenomenon and the implications that follow from this. Interactivity is generally considered to be desirable in supporting better and more engaging learning. Despite this there is debate as to what interactivity actually is. For example, interactivity has been variously defined as what a computer allows users to do with it (Mayer, 2005), those exchanges between the user and the machine that determine what the user sees next (Betrancourt, 2005), the ways in which a machine is controlled by the user (Saffer, 2007) or the user’s participation in a dramatic performance (Laurel, 1993). The simulation literature is also invested in defining interactivity:
[1]
Mireille Betrancourt,et al.
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning
,
2005
.
[2]
M. Malbrán.
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
,
2007
.
[3]
Counterfactual Reasoning a Basic Guide for Analysts, Strategists, and Decision Makers the Proteus Monograph Series Proteus Usa the Proteus Monograph Series Fellows Program Counterfactual Reasoning: a Basic Guide for Analysts, Strategists, and Decision Makers
,
2008
.
[4]
Richard Mayer,et al.
Multimedia Learning
,
2001,
Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.
[5]
Mba Facp Gary Meller MD.
A typology of simulators for medical education
,
2009,
Journal of Digital Imaging.
[6]
Brenda Laurel,et al.
Computers as theatre
,
1991
.
[7]
Barbara A. Spellman,et al.
When Possibility Informs Reality
,
1999
.
[8]
A. Tversky,et al.
The simulation heuristic
,
1982
.