First of all I want to complain to Lloyd! Why is it that the discussions are only on when I am absolutely flat out and don't have the time to follow the discussion directly? :-)
Secondly, a little comment about Rod Sims. In the 4 years I have known Rod, I have observed one key characteristic about him, and that is his capacity to stir up controversy and fuel debate. He's done it again! Good on ya, Rod.
My third contribution comes at the end of this excerpt from the ongoing discussion.
[quoting Dalgarno: 13 Nov 95] I think it's true to say that most Multimedia Developers and specifically Instructional Developers currently use tools like Hypercard, Toolbook, and Authorware, which are primarily designed for the development of "Instructivist" software, using the simpler forms of interaction. I think that the lack of "Constructivist" authoring tools is one of the major problems of our field.
[quoting Sims, 14 Nov 95.b] No, those software tools are OPEN--what is closed is the mind of the developers who have been indoctrinated by various instructivist principles--that is why I said it is a forgotten art--magicians, come forth!
[quoting Sims, 14 Nov 95.d] This is perhaps moving off the topic of interactivity specifically--but the functionality of the tools linked with/to the creativity and skill of the developer is a determinant of the level of interactivity which can be implemented.
I agree in part with Barney that some software tools are based originally on particular models. For example, Authorware is clearly based on traditional ISD theory, in its basic implementation without programming. However, I agree with Rod that you can create constructivist programs using Authorware, or any program--just look at some of Lloyd's work.
The key issue here is the creativity and open-mindedness of the developer, and in this I agree completely with Rod--what is closed is the mind of the developers who have been indoctrinated by various instructivist principles.
Perhaps I can air some thoughts here which may assist in resolving this problem without necessarily resorting to magic. (If there are any philosophers out there, please bear with my fuzzy terminology.)
As educators, most of the material we produce (lectures, textbooks, reports, research papers, etc.) is based on structured reasoning. This is a mental discipline which pervades all aspects of western society, especially academia. I hope you agree with me that structured reasoning involves constructing an argument by identifying a series of key points and forming them into a coherent argument, which has a logical conclusion. (I am doing this right now.) Structured reasoning is an important skill in tertiary environments, and indeed one of the key purposes of tertiary education is to produce graduates who can form a coherent argument and communicate this to others.
However, structured reasoning leads directly to an instructivist approach to teaching and learning. This is natural, given that the purpose of each of the forms of communication mentioned above (lectures, textbooks, reports, research papers, etc.) is to transmit the author's knowledge to an audience.
On the other hand, if you want to develop a constructivist, guided discovery approach to learning, where the student is assisted towards building their own structured argument (knowledge) of the topic, you must try to avoid imposing your own view of the topic on the student. This can require much mental discipline, because it goes against many years of ingrained experience in using structured reasoning.
In several recent projects that I have been involved in, attempts to analyze and design a project from a broadly constructivist viewpoint have tended to result in programs which start with the result of the structured argument, represented in some visual form. That is, display the end-product of the argument and allow the student to investigate any aspect of the content, to the depth and breadth they desire, essentially by tunneling into it. The scope of the IMM should be restricted to one key concept, which becomes the central starting point for the IMM project. Investigation of this concept leads to other information as required.
As a concrete example, we have used this approach in a project currently under development. The key learning issue is to understand the microscopic process of muscle contraction, shown by an animation which is used as a lecture aid. This animation is also used as the focal point of the IMM program. Instead of providing knowledge of individual components leading ultimately to the complete process, we start with the process as a whole, and allow the student investigate to the level they desire.
On the first level, the student simply observes and manipulates the animation, identifying the components and observing how they interact with each other. It is intended that this interaction will raise questions in the mind of the student which they can answer at the second level.
On the second level, students can click to explore a particular part of the animation. This takes them to another layer which provides extra explanation or guides the student in their search for understanding. The detailed content is overlaid as a window on top of the animation, parts of which are still visible to maintain context. From here, highlighted words are linked either to a glossary or to other parts of the second-level information space.
I am sorry that I haven't categorized the interactions here according to Rod's scheme, but I found it difficult to fully visualize it without a three dimensional diagram and examples. I guess I'll try the web version later.
So, in summary, to try to take the magic out of developing interactive learning, you might start by representing in some way the end result of the structured argument you want to make. Then, allow the student to work back from there, providing appropriate guidance and instruction.
One day we'll actually get one of these projects finished so we can see what effect it has on learning!