[quoting Dorricott, 14 Nov 95] Are you saying that FIRST you must be grounded in a meta-theory (instructivist or constructivist), THEN within that framework you can select strategies that might be derived from either camp, as long as they are consistent with the learning goals, and are not in direct conflict with the meta-theory? Okay, that seems reasonable to me. But, is that what you were saying?
Yep--as an interpretation of my words, that will, more or less, do for me! The whole point here, is that we need to conceptualize the debate concerning instructivism and constructivism, so that further debate doesn't get bogged down in misrepresentations, over-simplification, or misunderstandings. And, this is precisely what I have done (or intended to do). (By the way, shouldn't such a debate be placed in an ITForum FAQ list?)
More than this, however, I have suggested that instructional strategies do not necessarily conflict, whatever they might be, with either I or C, as meta-theories. This is why Mike Spector's "two camps at war" scenario is an unhelpful analogy (see below)--and mistaken (with all due respect). Instead of invoking I or C as instructional strategies (which they are not), we should instead be speaking of instructional strategies as deriving from various theories of learning. Now, it may be that different theories of learning fit more or less comfortably with either C or I--but this does not make them incompatible with C or I.
Let's take an example (and I deliberately use as an example, something which I think we will all be familiar with)--consider the Biggs (and Telfer and Moore) learning theory, namely that learners exhibit various approaches to learning (not to be confused with learning styles); and that these approaches can be influenced by instructional strategies, task engagement, learning goals, etc. So learners might exhibit, according to this theory, deep learning, achieving learning, surface learning, or achieving-surface learning approaches. And, further, it is possible to influence these approaches by changing any or all parts of the teaching-learning environment (what Biggs conceptualizes as comprising, in all cases, "presage," "process," and "product" factors). So, for example, if we wish to engage students in "deep" approaches to their learning, then we should be setting in place "process" factors which allow students to, for example, reflect on their learning, to articulate what they know, and to model their knowledge (with or without computers).
Now, where does this example fit with the C and I debate? To my mind, and according to my conceptualization of this debate, it fits nowhere--that is to say, it has little to do with this debate. And it don't matter whether one is a diehard or reborn C or I person; what simply matters is whether one sees any merit in the Biggs model of learning. But the beauty of learning theories is that they stand or fall on the findings of research--something that C or I cannot do (since, as epistemologies, they cannot be validated in any apriori sense). But now I'm simply repeating what I said in my original postings.
[quoting Spector, 14 Nov 95.b] One of the reasons the C&I discussion is particularly problematic is that epistemology, learning, and teaching are blurred and possibly confused. I do not recall using the term "recipes" to refer to the C&I positions. I did use the term "camp" as I believe that the C&I discussion degenerates into a battle of words all too often--hence, armed camps--armed with the "right" words to defeat the enemy.
In my mind, the enemy is our pretense to know things that we do not know.
Yes, I did substitute "recipes" for "camp," as an analogy for the C-I debate, quite simply and deliberately, to implicitly suggest that we avoid polemics of language often used to describe (incorrectly) this debate. I'm not really sure to what you are referring in you last sentence (above)--but I assume it is a plea for us to "know our stuff" before discussing it. And quite right! This is, in fact, precisely why it is important to offer conceptualizations of the C-I debate, albeit it be in the midst of Rod's paper offering a theoretical model of interactivity--simply because our understandings of the C and I debate should be (must be) at the core of our understandings of such things as human-computer interaction, including typologies of interactivity.
[quoting Sims, 16 Nov 95] 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.
Before you start another war, this time based on warring nations rather than warring ideologues, I think it might be worth considering that the CAI and CAL terms are not really different in kind. That is, each of these terms need to be seen both historically and culturally. The Americans gave us CAI, whilst at the same time, the British gave us CAL, in the early 1980s. But at this time, examples of software from both sides of the Atlantic were very similar--tutorial, drill, etc. So, the evolution of software is both culturally influenced and historically situated. But I don't think that, over very short time spans at least, we should see the British as collectively holding a more mature view of learning than the Americans (even although, as a Brit, I actually believe this.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). The study process questionnaire (SPQ) manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J.B., & Moore, P.J. (1993). The process of learning (3rd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Biggs, J.B., & Telfer, R. (1987). The process of learning (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.