To begin these notes, I thought a bit of personal philosophy on "interactivity" might be in order. These comments are based on some 15 years of CAL/CBT/IMM development, and I leave it to you to determine whether or not there are signs of conversion. Some time ago, before (I contend) our U.S. colleagues had heard of learning (I generalize of course), they spoke of CAI; and, what is "instruction?"--the "dissemination of knowledge." It was no wonder we got heaps of "linear" stuff which got bad press. On the other hand, the Brits (and us convicts) tended to speak of CAL; and, what is "learning?"--the acquisition of knowledge. So it seemed to me this was the way to go. What good is a computer as an instructor? Why not see if it could be used as a tool to help learning? Ah ha. But, how could this be achieved--by creative use of the INTERACTIVE nature of the technology.
For example, if you were trying to teach students about the "five steps to open a cheque account" the CAI/ISD approach might be to identify each step (on separate screens/frames) then on another new screen, ask the student to recall those five steps. If they get them right--MASTERY, if not, REVIEW. But I have always argued that being able to recall five steps (memorizing) is not the same as applying them Enter (stage left) the CAL approach--confront the student with a customer who wants to open a cheque account. Ask the student what they would do first. If they have some pre-requisite knowledge they will probably get the step right, if not, creative use of feedback (Update Interactivity) can guide them to the right step. Through a series of iterations, the student can ultimately achieve the goal of correctly opening the account, perhaps even dealing with randomly generated permutations on those steps, whether or not the steps were necessarily performed in the "right" order. And once they've achieved the task--MASTERY or COMPETENCE. This is what I've called a "reverse tutorial" strategy--but maybe its also on the constructivist path.
And now to the recent feedback ...
[quoting Jenkins, 14 Nov 95] Shouldn't we just shortcut the whole process and embrace the games industry?
Well, this introduces the argument as to whether education can be recreational and fun. For some reason, there is a level of seriousness about training (my background), with organizations wanting to ensure their employees are competent--so the knowledge may not be appropriate in a games environment. However, again it all depends on environment. For example, one of the best projects produced by our students this year was designed for Surf Lifesavers--with the delivery environment the surf club (full of noise, children stung by bluebottles, surfers with shark bites, music, sand, water, etc.). So how do you make the learning of various tasks engaging? Play some games. On the other hand, asking workers in the railway system about procedures to do with hazardous chemicals and spillages may not be suitable for a games strategy, although it would well suit N-ICI (do you remember what that is?)
[quoting Spector, 14 Nov 95.a] My question is this: Is the third dimension to be construed as the extent to which the learner is involved in designing the learning environment?
Yes, and as the discussion has progressed, I think the classifications I proposed will require modification and restructuring.
[quoting Spector, 14 Nov95.b] Meanwhile, Rod has suggested a very useful framework for thinking about and exploring the effects of interactivity in the context of rich learning environments--and that is the discussion we should pursue.
Thanks Mike. I would like to reiterate that what I've written about comes from a designer/developer perspective, trying to get the best out of the technology--sometimes successfully I would hope. In fact, I often think "Interactive Design" is what we should do more of, and what is missing from the skills in training courses.
[quoting Reeves, 14 Nov 95] Instead, I have been converted to a position that in many (not all) contexts, learners themselves can better function as designers or co-designers of their own learning environments, using technologies as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, solving problems, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others.
Can this be applied across the curriculum, from K-Adult?
For a much more articulate attempt to bridge the gap between the ISD and the Learning Environment communities...
Do we need to actually build a bridge? My thoughts are that its always been there, some have just been too afraid to cross.
[quoting Kennedy, 15 Nov 95] I must take umbrage at this rather sweeping statement Rod. Nor do I believe that teachers/lecturers have been the major producers of poor educational software. By all means know something about the tool you intend to employ to accomplish learning, but that doesn't require a developer to be a full-time programmer. Developers should have competent programmers as part of the design team, and the team should have someone with a sound grounding in teaching, learning and good educational practice, a graphics designer, and input from the intended learners. Too much poor software purported to be educational has been produced by really competent programmers who weren't also trained graphic designers and educators.
You misunderstood, I think. "Developer," to me, is the one who makes it happen, the designer gets other stuff right. It helps if both know what can be done, however. And, the team makeup has been known for yonks--programmer, ISD, SME.
...but appropriately designed IMM and Hypermedia will I believe) change the nature of education and the respective roles of teachers and students.
Why? It hasn't really done so yet.
And now for some light refreshment. I recently had the good fortune to meet novelist Tom Robbins (Even Cowgirls Get the Blues) at the launch of his new book Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas. During the launch he read the following passage ...
Sarah Bernhardt was such a powerfully popular, awe-inspiring actress that when she toured in North America her performances invariably sold out, even though she spoke hardly a word of English. Whatever play she did, Shakespeare, Moli‘re, Marlowe or whatever, she did in French, a language few nineteenth century Americans could comprehend. Theatergoers were provided with librettos so they might follow the action in English. Well, on at least a couple of occasions, ushers passed out the wrong libretto, a text for an entirely different drama than the one that was being staged. Yet, from all reports, not once did a single soul in those capacity crowds ever comment or complain. Furthermore, no critic ever mentioned the discrepancy in his or her review. We modern human beings are looking at life, trying to make some sense of it, observing a "reality" that often seems to be unfolding in a foreign tongue--only we've all been issued with the wrong librettos. For a text we're given the Bible. Or the Talmud or the Koran. We're given Time magazine and Reader's Digest, daily papers and the six o'clock news; we're given school books, sitcoms and revisionist histories; we're given psychological counseling, cults, workshops, advertisements, sales pitches, and authoritative pronouncements by pundits, sold-out scientists, political activists, and heads of state. Unfortunately, none of these translations bears more than a faint resemblance to what is transpiring in the true theater of existence, and most of them are dangerously misleading. We're attempting to comprehend the spiraling intricacies of a magnificently complex tragi-comedy with librettos that describe barroom melodramas or kindergarten skits. (pp. 116-117)
It seems to me (at this early hour) that there are a lot of librettos out there--who's got the right one for this performance?