Doris, you've made some provocative observations. I like your idea of using ethnographic methodologies to look at "quality" of learning transactions. I'd like you to elaborate a bit on what you have in mind, and unpack, especially, the last paragraph.
[quoting Shaw, 21 Oct 94] As far as performance support systems are concerned, their success is very difficult to measure by traditional methods.
Could you explain what you mean by "performance support" (as opposed, for example to "help," "guidance," or "advisement")? Is this type of support under user control?
The motivation for their use must be intrinsic (Malone stuff), since setting up extrinsic motivation such as fantasy, credit for completion, scoring points, or bells and whistles is not part of their design.
How are Malone's intrinsically motivating elements, challenge, fantasy, and curiosity incorporated into a performance support system?
Who is to know what piece of the system satisfies each student's intrinsic curiosity or job requirement?
Are you referring to performance support systems when you say "system"? If so, why does a designer need to know this, particularly if user control is possible? What effect do performance support systems have on students' intrinsic motivation?
That again suggests that process/product comparison is the way to measure transactions in the case of performance support systems.
I'm really interested in what you mean by "process/product comparison" as a kind of measurement. I'd be grateful if you would elaborate a bit on these points as I'm currently attempting to study the effects of what might be called an instructional support system (or simply, "instruction") on motivation, using qualitative techniques.