2 Apr 96
T. Kent Thomas

[quoting Norman, 2 Apr 96] Learner-centered education means that the learner is the center--an active center. Kent Thomas, in his reply to me, seemed to think that learner-centered somehow could be done through lecture and demonstrations.

No, this is an obvious misunderstanding, but I'm not sure how it occurred. This long post is my "best attempt" to clear up the misunderstanding. I didn't state that learner-centered could be done through lecture and demonstration. I was questioning the focus on learner-centered at the same time I was trying to caution that there is still a very valid place for lecture and demonstration. Donald stated in his original paper "The lecture and textbook are still the most effective ways of presenting a large array of material rapidly and efficiently. After all, they have been with us for several thousand years: this is the way that most of us were trained." I agree. I was merely cautioning against "evangelizing" learner-centered instruction, if this means a complete endorsement of constuctivism or exploratory learning methods. Donald introduced his paper with the statement "The basic issues can be described through such key words as "constructivism," "learner-centered," "problem-based." I was responding to the term constuctivism and the extensive use of "exploratory" or "exploration" throughout the remainder of the paper.

Kent tells me he is a trainer. What an interesting term. I guess I am not sure what that is or how it differs from teachers.

The best distinction I've ever heard is "Training is for an immediate, defined need. Education is for a future, perceived need." I don't teach, I train. As a trainer, all my content is problem-centered. If there weren't a problem, I wouldn't be developing training. All the training is "task-centered." If the learner cannot apply the training content to a specific task or set of tasks, I have failed, not the learner. This perspective is clearly communicated to the learner, providing a "real-world, practical" context that carries through the entire design of the instruction. Yet, the methods that I use to provide the training are not exploratory or learner-selected or learner-controlled. They are very structured and as direct as they can be, and as directly relevant to real-world tasks.

Donald went on to quote me, as follows below. I meant to make the point that one of the primary reasons that more simulation-based learning is not available is because of the complexity and expense involved, while also illustrating the "mix" of instructional strategies that I routinely use:

[Norman quoting Thomas, 1 Apr 96] As a trainer, I believe in "learner-centered" simulations in CBT/MM absolutely, but I use simpler tutorials (equivalent to demonstrations or lectures) for most of the content. A typical skills training course might include:

50% "linear tutorials" presenting introductions, basic facts, background information, demonstrations, etc.

30% "path simulations" or "prompted simulations" (actually a complex, branched tutorial in most cases) providing guided practice as the learner begins applying the information, and

20% "free-play simulations" to provide the learner independent or unguided practice in applying the information, with a critique of performance at the end.

By the way, the second method costs roughly twice the amount of development time as the first, and the third costs roughly twice the development time as the second.
Sounds horrible to me. That's the kind of course that bores the hell out of students.

Perhaps your misunderstanding of my points led to this "harsh" statement. I would hope so. By the way, this basic "mix" of strategies has won several industry awards for me ( 3 Invision awards--2 Silver, and 1 Bronze; 4 Nebraska Interactive Media Awards or "Nebbies", etc.), so I don't think they're necessarily horrible to all who have seen or experienced them--Perhaps just different!

As for the cost structures--well, the whole point of the >CACM articles was to try to develop instructional methods that reduce the costs. Just because the first method is cheaper than the others doesn't mean we should do it.

As a trainer, having to constantly justify the expense (both direct and indirect expenses) of training, I "beg to differ." Unless the material being taught requires a more complex strategy, I must use a less expensive (i.e., more cost-effective) strategy.

Actually, I would never use the second or third methods. Branched tutorials are murder to develop and prepare. And it is the rare one that truly stimulates: they are just too hard to do.

I'd refer anyone wanting to develop effective, yet complex-seeming path simulations to the text: Gibbons, A.S. (1996, Designing Computer-Based Instruction, Educational Technology Publications). It's not all that difficult, if it is based around a specific task or set of tasks, instead of exploration. I think both Donald and I are "revolting" against "topic-based" instruction, both of us focusing on problem-based, but from different perspectives--I value a more direct instruction, experiential (simulation-based) approach, he appears (to me) to value a more indirect, inquiry or exploratory approach.

As for the last, free-play is seldom appropriate. I believe in adding much more structure. I so structure the situation that the students have to discover exactly the information I want them to learn. "Free-play" is not learning.

I agree. The free-play simulation is ONLY for assessment or independent practice (with delayed feedback) in a controlled environment. These are the complex ones and by far the most expensive strategies to implement! One set of simulations I helped design had over 40(225) possible paths, a 40-plus step troubleshooting procedure with over 225 possible actions that could be taken at each point in the troubleshooting procedure.

The basic instructional strategy that I implement in CBT is the "age-old" strategy of good skills training:

I don't think Donald and I are too far apart on our views of problem-centered instruction or simulations.

I believe strongly in providing a lot of structure, and in making the environment guide the student to exactly the points that need to be explored and learned. Exploratory learning works if the teacher has set up the situation that the exploration always happens upon just the concepts to be acquired. Otherwise it fails.

I agree that structure is required. I probably include far more structure in my CBT designs than Donald would or does. But I also feel that structure and exploratory are almost a dichotomy of terms. How do I truly explore in a structured (i.e., either controlled or limited) environment? Why not limit my exploration and show me direct cause-effect, action-reaction types of relationships? In fact, I've presented papers on the instructional value of limiting the free-play and "realism or fidelity" in simulations. Realism is complex, expensive (especially when including media treatment) and time-consuming to develop.

As my colleague Alan Kay loves to point out. Students won't invent science, or the calculus, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. We have to guide them to discover these, to study them, and to enjoy them. Traditional education, however, rubs the students' noses into the material, often diminishing the enjoyment, and thereby minimizing what gets learned.

I also tried to make the point that I didn't enjoy spending a whole school-year diagramming sentences, but I certainly value that today. Neither was I in a position at that point to decide or select what I needed to know. My concern with the term learner-centered, especially when used with the term exploratory learning, is that the learner is often the LEAST QUALIFIED person to decide what they need to learn and when they need to learn it. Perhaps Donald and I differ in who should be the guide--the teacher, or the computer. The computer can also do this, consistently and patiently, just as the computer can be patient and persistent in drill and practice or tutorials.

[quoting Norman/Spohrer paper] Learner-centered design addresses the need for learner engagement, but other stockholders need designs which address the issues of effectiveness and viability.

I was trying to address these issues of effectiveness and viability. That must not have been clear. In my humble opinion, and as well supported as the counterpoint in the literature, learner-controlled exploratory learning is not nearly as effective as other more structured methods. In training, learning time is money--money spent on salaries while the learner is in training and money lost while they're away from their job. Learning time in our education system is also very limited, students are graduating with limited knowledge, and I feel that efficiency is important in education also. Donald acknowledges that point, also in the original paper:

But because any single problem requires considerable time to allow the students to discover and work through the critical components, this approach is weakest in covering a wide range of materials and in establishing the ability to use the skills automatically, without cognitive effort. These aspects of education are best left to the textbook, the lecture, and drill and practice.

Further, I'd add that exploratory learning environments are so expensive to develop that it is not very economically viable for widespread use. Economics has definitely limited the implementation of good CBT. Finally, I'd ask what additional demands it would place upon the "average teacher" to effectively implement an environment where the computer is used as a tool to explore these learning environments. The students seem to already know more about many of these uses of the tools than the "average teacher." Just as CBT has been poorly designed and implemented in the past (and is only now becoming widely accepted), I fear the same can and likely will happen with these exploratory methods--and the results compounded by the teacher's ability (or lack thereof) to utilize them effectively.

Do we need more "exploratory learning environments" to be poorly implemented when put into practice, or do we spend our limited technology budgets on more structured, self-contained, and consistent problem-centered CBT? Life is full of choices. Pay your money and take your choice.