Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Session 3A: Advances in Interactivity Research Jim Gleason, EKU / UK, Chair Renee Human, University of Kentucky Laura Beth Daws, University of Kentucky.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Session 3A: Advances in Interactivity Research Jim Gleason, EKU / UK, Chair Renee Human, University of Kentucky Laura Beth Daws, University of Kentucky."— Presentation transcript:

1 Session 3A: Advances in Interactivity Research Jim Gleason, EKU / UK, Chair Renee Human, University of Kentucky Laura Beth Daws, University of Kentucky Lisa Beeler, University of Kentucky

2 Overview The term interactivity is casually used to describe everything from e-commerce to iPhones and from Google to Second Life. Yet, both the emergence of new products and the continued trend toward convergence have only served to make the term harder to corral than ever. The panelists examine the challenges facing interactivity scholarship and individual advances in interactivity research. They suggest a number of new models and fruitful areas for relevant continued scholarship.

3 Interactivity: An Examination from a Mass Communication Perspective Jim Gleason, Eastern Kentucky University / University of Kentucky

4 Introduction This paper examines  the nature of interactivity from a mass communication perspective,  content's contribution to the communication process, and  how interactivity influences communication outcomes.

5 Previous models of interactivity Early models:  Too great an emphasis on its roots in technology and the features and functions at play.  Rafaeli, 1988; Heeter, 1989; Neumann, 1991; Steuer, 1995; others Later models:  More user-centered but too focused on user perception exclusively.  A piece of a communication process rather than the outcome itself.  Laurel, 1986; Ha & James, 1998; Massey & Levy, 1999 Current models:  OK, maybe it’s a bit of both.  Kiousis, Bucy

6 Issues with current literature Interactivity construct frequently forced to fit a variety of condition states & conflicting models. Rapid growth of online publishing / broadcasting and new digital media. Interpersonal view is too narrow  Face-to-face – the gold standard  No discussion of content’s role Imprecise use of terminology

7 Terminology Interaction -- The communication process characterized by mutual or reciprocal action, influence or message exchange. Interaction is the act or process of interacting—the process of communicating itself.

8 Terminology Interactive -- Technological channel features or content elements that facilitate an active communication transaction in which these elements act upon or with other technologies and technological features to obtain data or commands and in response give immediate results or updated information.

9 Terminology Interactivity -- A summative perception of the degree to which a user (the interactant) participates (interacts) in a communication process (the interaction) with substantive interactive features of a technology.

10 A new model is needed Involves multiple dimensions Embraces the Mass Communication perspective Recognizes content as a key contributing dimension Positions Interactivity as an outcome state

11 A new definition of Interactivity Interactivity is the perception of a positive outcome state resulting from the integration of individual receiver characteristics, substantive (interactive) technological features, and reactive content during mutual and reciprocal message exchanges.

12

13 The importance of predictive dimensions Technological features  Features or functions of the medium &/or device being used that are contextually substantive in a manner contributing to the quality of the communication experience

14 The importance of predictive dimensions Relevant user experiences  Perceived by the receiver to enhance the communication experience by creating the opportunity for potential increases in perceived interactivity  Context or the physical and virtual environment that shapes a user’s readiness and receptivity to act within the interaction communication event  User perception of his or her own readiness and receptivity to act within the interaction communication event

15 The importance of predictive dimensions Content  Influences user perception in a manner independent of the particular technology or medium used to communicate these messages.

16

17 Conclusions Argued for a new content-specific predictive dimension of interactivity Present the Responsive Multi-Dimensional Model of Interactivity as a new framework through which to understand the predictive dimensions and related elements that mutually influence the conditions under which interactivity is perceived by the user.

18 Conclusions The comprehensive and inclusive scope of the RMD Model offers broad applicability in multiple forms of computer-mediated communication, Particularly in light of ongoing communication advances and the continued trend toward technological convergence. Perhaps the future will yield more applicable results as the new RMD model of interactivity is tested and the unique contributions of the predictive dimension of content is more broadly appreciated.

19 Interactivity 2.0: Interactivity in the Context of Web 2.0 and the Digital Coordinated Renee Human University of Kentucky

20 Interactivity, Access and Skill: Rural Journalism, Online Newspapers, and Community Discussion Laura Beth Daws University of Kentucky

21 This Isn't Monopoly Anymore, Kids: Live Gaming Headsets and Perceived Interactivity Lisa Beeler University of Kentucky


Download ppt "Session 3A: Advances in Interactivity Research Jim Gleason, EKU / UK, Chair Renee Human, University of Kentucky Laura Beth Daws, University of Kentucky."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google