[quoting Grabrowski, 17 Oct 94] Is there a role for tutorial CBI that is engaging and transactive?
I believe that tutorial CBI can be engaging and transactive, but looking at the current multimedia applications, I'm not sure it has much of a future. A lot of the work "down-under" is reflecting the computer-as-a-tool model rather than computer-as-a-teacher, which is the outcome of many tutorial applications.
Is it worth the risk to develop it, if there is a chance that we might fail?
Why should we fail if we have a clearly defined need which can be satisfied by technological intervention for a defined population? The need will surely dictate the interactive strategy to be used and thus minimize failure, although our preference has always been for the more contextual/situate applications.
Is learner control as Rod was defining it at the lowest end of the transaction continuum, with electronic page turning on the negative side of that same continuum--and unacceptable to be classified as a transaction?
I have thought some more about this and agree that a transaction is probably more than moving from one display to the next, although I'm sure someone could turn up a contra-example.
How do we find out if someone is mentally engaged covertly? Does it matter that we know?
I don't think we can discover this by viewing computer records in isolation (e.g., results, audit trails). However, post-analysis in consultation with a teacher/facilitator may elicit details about the extent of cognitive activity during the interactions. Yes, it does matter, because that is our evaluation and proof of success. I have never believed that the results of a mastery test are a true indication of competence, performance or knowledge--the real test is in actual performance which can only be measured by observation of predetermined criteria (e.g. sales revenue, analysis of data).
I'd be interested in hearing more about the APITITE '94 paper--and maybe even getting a copy!
Thanks. I'll let you have a copy.
If branching happens in between transactions, what does the computer do or how does it respond within a transaction?
I was envisaging a transaction as a task which the student had to complete. This could range from answering a question (and therefore requires both a response from learner and computer) to exploring an environment to collect data. Once the task is complete, and optional advisement supplied, the student would branch to another transaction. However, the real problem is that within more advanced learning environments, the concept of a transaction does not fit, because there is no predefined task to complete, and it could be argued that the whole lesson is the transaction--which means a multitude of cognitive activity, learner response and computer response. Perhaps the concept of transaction fits neatly with the traditional behavioral approach to instruction, but not so much to the constructivist?
I am sure that Merrill would heartily agree that his criteria for creating instruction was very narrowly (too narrowly) defined and applied in TICCIT. I also heartily agree!
If Dave is taking part in this discussion, I'd be interested to hear is views on the role and structure of the transaction.
If a transaction is under instructional control, how can learner control play such an important role? I am not sure I follow you there.
I think I was seeing the learner control as being within a transaction while the sequence of transactions was more under program control.
I agree that navigational controls are independent of a transaction--and function outside of them.
It would appear there is still a lot to learn about navigation, control, interface, and strategies for effective interactive learning!
Whoa! I like the idea behind a virtual reality transaction!
Good. This is the future of interactive instruction!