[quoting Hannafin's paper] In effect, OELEs impose no particular pedagogical strategy or instructional sequence, but guide learners in invoking their own strategies and generating their own learning sequences.
How do learners acquire their own strategies? Steve Draper [27 May 96] points out that he buys a book to support his learning, but the ability to use a book, or an OELE, requires certain abilities that don't always eventuate.
For instance, research on microworlds (in the AI/Ed sense of explorable environments, not Laurillard's view which seems to me more like a modeling tool) shows that students aren't good explorers on their own, they need guidance.
Now you are, I believe, talking about a situation where the learner is engaged in an activity that makes the acquisition of knowledge meaningful, like when we as academics are engaged in an activity that makes attending a lecture an effective learning environment. However, am I also safe in inferring that it is expected that the learner is already an effective self-learner? What I didn't get a feel for, from your paper, is when such environments are appropriate. And, that's something I'd like to hear about.
What does technology afford the design of such learning environments? Technology provides the means through which wide-ranging resources can be generated, indexed, accessed, linked, and assembled... Technology provides powerful engines that enable flexible search strategies, and tools with which to connect, link, record, capture, manipulate. Technology embeds (or make available) various kinds of advice and/or support (e.g., scaffolding, strategic guidance, etc.) to aid learners in constructing understanding.
What I see here strikes me as extremely passive, once I begin to focus on what it is the learner does with these OELEs. I could see this "open-ended learning environment" being something like the web, a hypermedia reference. I don't see how the above really includes something like a game that serves as a practice environment for a skill that the learner is keen to acquire. It talks about manipulating, but is that manipulating like cutting and pasting text? Or like using a simulation tool kit to build a model? What I really don't have a feel for is what an exemplary "open-ended learning environment" might be like. Could I have an example?
I think this may raise Barney's [Dalgarno, 28 May 96] point to more prominent status: how are these different from what the proponents of "electronic performance support systems" claim that they do?
...fundamentally the perspective was one of trying to create learning environments that capitalize more on how individuals reason than imparting particular kinds of reasoning.
Although there are times when we do want to impart particular kinds of reasoning, this doesn't mean all interactions with systems need to be of that kind. But, what's appropriate when? And, perhaps more interestingly, are we too often using "instruction" rather than "learning support?" If we limited instruction to "learning to learn," would then the natural love of learning (that schooling so effectively extinguishes), with guidance, support coverage of the curriculum?
I am strongly influenced by Richard Clark's "mere vehicles" description of media, including computer-based technologies. However, I also find Bob Kozma's views about "learning with media" to be compelling. Both strike me as important, and not entirely incompatible, positions. I have tried to reconcile them because there is wisdom in each.
And what does your reconciliation look/feel like? What do you recommend when?
There are several available design technologies.
How do they relate to yours? It greatly appears that you've been doing OELE design, what is your approach? And how does it relate to the approaches of Bransford Studios and Schank, Inc.?
I'm looking to distill into a unifying, generalizable design system, but I'm nowhere near accomplishing it. I believe it is essential to the broader adoption and application of open learning designs, but haven't yet "cracked the code" on how it should be done.
I'd sure like to hear where you are currently. You must have an approach; maybe it's not a unifying approach, but what works for you?
Sorry to ask so many questions, but you raise such interesting issues, I'd like to hear where YOU end up.