You are here:

Interactive e-learning activities to engage learners - A simple classification

, Institute of Technical Education, Singapore

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Montreal, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-56-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


How can we design e-learning resources that will motivate and sustain learner's engagement? Most of us would probably agree that infusing appropriate interactivity is crucial in engaging learners and providing necessary support for developing higher-level cognitive skills. However, beyond this common understanding, the topic on interactivity appears to be filled with a vast array of competing, and sometimes confusing, theories and research findings. At our institution, we have developed a simple classification system to guide the design of appropriate interactive activities for our e-learning resources. In this paper, I would describe this classification system, giving examples pertaining to vocational education developed by our lecturers.


Tang, B.C. (2005). Interactive e-learning activities to engage learners - A simple classification. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 4092-4097). Montreal, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 17, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Barker, P. (1994). Designing Interactive Learning. In T. De Jong& L. Sarti (Eds), Design and Production of Multimedia and Simulation-based Learning Material. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  2. Bork, A (1982). Interactive Learning. In R. Taylor(Ed.), The computer in the school. New York: Teachers College Press.
  3. Ehrman, S.C. (1994). Foreward. In R.A. Markwood & S.M. Johnstone (Eds.), New pathways to a degree: Technology opens the college (pp. 1-7). Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
  4. Jonassen, D.H. (1988). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. New York: Addis on-Wesley.
  6. McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1995). Who is in control? Defining interactive learning environments. Retrieved Aug 10, 2004, from Mesher, D. (1999). Designing Interactivities for Internet Learning, Syllabus, 12(7).
  7. Moore, M.G. (1992). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  8. Ohl, T.M. (2001). An Interaction-centric learning model. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 311-332.
  9. Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation. Educational Technology Review, 12, 13-17.
  10. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A Forgotten Art? Retrieved June 10, 2004 from Sims, R. (1999). The Interactive Conundrum I: Interactive Constructs and Learning Theory. Retrieved July 30, 2004 from
  11. Summers, J. (1991). Effect of interactivity upon student achievement completion intervals and affective perceptions. The International Journal of Multimedia, 19(2), 12-20.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. The Influence of Interactivity on Student Achievement

    James Helfrich, Brigham Young University - Idaho, United States; David Coffland, Idaho State University, United States

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2014 (Oct 27, 2014) pp. 818–828

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact