[quoting Dabbagh, 28 May 96] Can you please clarify what you mean by a "particular instance" of an open learning system? Would it be an OELE based on the particular needs of the learners and other contextual influences of the learning environment, or is it an instance in the pedagogical sense?
Both, to a degree. Any given instance will have specific needs and priorities that differentiate it from others. There are differences but the considerations attendant to them are not entirely unique. Both deal with learner/audience considerations, both reflect consideration of what is to be learned, demonstrated, etc., both consider contextual factors. The manner in which these considerations are operationalized in a given instance varies, but both require similar considerations.
Do you think that the conceptual overlap among these approaches might fall under the general heading of contructivism? Or perhaps this is too broad of a paradigm and we need to distill the concepts further in order to achieve the economy of scale that you refer to in your message?
I haven't described these as being common features of constructivist design, but I see ways to equate them. I have resisted the idea of either being called a constructivist or describing OELE systems as being constructivistic because I was afraid I'd have to explain why. The term "constructivism" that is. Its become a kind of Rorschach technique for both advocates and critics. For every instance where an espoused constructivist philosophy seems consistent with my beliefs, there are instances where it generates unresolvable debate. For me, it distracts rather than enlightens.
In the light of this message, do you consider PBL (problem-based learning), situated learning, Cognitive Flexibility Hypertexts, and Microworlds as OELE environments?
I think I addressed this in my response in a previous message but again the essence of that comment: If implemented to enable the individual to respond to, generate, or pursue issues derived largely for their own purposes, yes (as described by the likes of Spiro, Bransford, Papert, etc.).
[quoting Quinn, 29 May 96] How do learners acquire their own strategies? Steve 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.
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.
Generally, yes. Either the context for learning is inherently understood and valued (as well as the goals and motivation for engagement) or methods for inducing engagement (meaningful problem statements, dilemmas that must be researched, etc.) are provided.
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.
The problem Clark identifies is a real dilemma. In my response to yesterdays messages, I mentioned scaffolding as one method for providing support to those that either lack the substantive knowledge or self-management skill to engage the OELE readily and effectively. Still, there are lots of circumstances for which, and lots of learners for whom, openness is very problematic. Learning of a very prescribed nature (e.g., steps to be followed during heart transplants, procedures for pulling a jet aircraft out of a stall in emergency circumstances, etc.) are not good candidates for open learning systems because it is the precise, prescribed execution that is critical, not the idiosyncratic ways I might decide to replace damaged heart valves. Efficiency issues are also a concern. There are instances where the "personalized learning" of relatively small but very consequential information may require disproportionate time, that is, better to be taught some things quickly because the tool-payoff potential of the knowledge or skill is very high (e.g., instruction in the features of a web browser) On the other hand, a great deal of what we need to learn is not mediated by precision of procedures or core utility. There are many ways things can (and perhaps should) be learned (e.g., perspectives on world wars, societies, culture, law, civil rights, etc.), and we want to open those possibilities to the learner.
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?
This is where the present medium fails both of us. There's simply no adequate way to either anticipate or address all the possible things that might be of interest, but if you'll tolerate some radical simplification I'll try. I agree completely that technology systems that afford point-and-click access are not OELEs--not by themselves anyway. Its as much a question of "how" and "why" one does something as "what" one does. I've provided some examples and references in previous messages so I won't repeat them here. But to emphasize--the resources, themselves, do not define a learning environment any more than hammers define construction. Its the manner in which engagement is initiated and sustained (e.g., problems, learner needs or requirements, etc.), and the extent to which the available tools and resources support the goals of the engagement, that define an open system as a "learning" environment.
Regarding the reconciliation of Clark/Kozma, the residue of the revelation:
(1) Good methods are better than bad methods. Period. (2) Our goal is not always to produce winners but to produce alternatives. (3) Not all uses are "delivery"--many are rooted in generating, extending, etc., tools and methods that affect what individuals do with ideas and information.
[regarding 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'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?
Again, this is a book in itself.
Some references might be helpful in framing our work:
Bransford, et al. (1992). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. Lesgold & Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. Erlbaum.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
Collins, A.S., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lave, J. Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.
Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivistic values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4-16.
Rieber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93-106.
Rogoff and Lave (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Harvard University Press.
Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43-58.
Some of our recent publications related to learning foundations and OELEs:
Hannafin, M.J. & Land, S. (revisions pending). The foundations and assumptions of student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science.
Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J., & Land, S. (in press). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education.
Land, S., & Hannafin, M.J. (in press). A conceptual framework for the development of theories in action with open learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development.
Choi, J-I., & Hannafin, M.J. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69.
Gavora, M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1995). Perspectives on the design of human-computer interactions: Issues and implications. Instructional Science, 22, 445-477.
Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Educational Technology, 34(8), 48-55.
Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49-63.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M.J. (1991). Psychological perspectives on emerging instructional technologies: A critical analysis. Educational Psychologist, 26, 69-95.
Hannafin, M.J., & Rieber, L.P. (1989). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Parts I & II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, 91-114.