[quoting Surry, 14 Nov 95] Tom said that tutorial-style applications have not been widely-used and that is true. But then he implied that the key to increased utilization is to create these more constructivistic applications. I think he is wrong on that one. His Army missile program is a good example--that was an instructivist program that was used and that was found to be helpful by the users.
Though tutorial-style applications may not be widely appreciated, I'd suggest that they are THE most widely-used instructional strategy of any strategy currently in use. Some are good, many are bad, but they're definitely quite common in CBT.
So, in a nutshell, I think the answer to increased utilization is to develop better tutorials not to declare defeat and take up the ivory tower notion that constructivistic open ended learning tools are the key. Instruction is a purposeful activity and will always demand a certain, in my opinion, a large, degree of structure and purpose.
I agree with Daniel--let's improve our use of tutorials. This paper provides a mechanism for categorizing and discussing how we could. For example, the "richness" of a tutorial experience is frequently in the type/depth of mental processing required to interact and the feedback to that interaction that corrects or reinforces the mental response. Further, in training (my business), I'm very concerned about the overall cost-effectiveness of the instructional program, considering both the design/development time required, and the students' time-on-task required to meet the criterion. I won't be abandoning tutorials for a long, long, time--they're my "bread and butter," but not the only strategy I use.
I support the use of several instructional strategies in the same CBT, based upon what level of learning I'm teaching at that point. Tutorials are used for facts and concepts, "linear" simulations for procedural, task performance, and more "free-play" simulations for problem-solving, decision-making or troubleshooting, with perhaps a game (often a thinly disguised drill-and-practice) thrown in at any point where automaticity is a requirement. I try to always "balance" the instructional objective with the least costly instructional strategy (my time or the learners time) required to reach that objective.
To debate one strategy over another, much less the "meta-theory" from which it may have evolved isn't very productive in my view. (Describing how different instructional strategies can be improved through better design of interactions would be.) It's like trying to argue that apples are inherently better than oranges (or vice versa), while ignoring bananas, mangoes, passion-fruit, etc. Reminds me of the old cliche of "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail." I want a BIG tool box!