I was responding covertly. But, your transactions now have me responding overtly. I won't get to all the questions, but a few got my attention.
[quoting Grabrowski, 17 Oct 94] Is there a role for tutorial CBI that is engaging and transactive?
Yes, there are important roles for transactions in tutorials. I believe that Merrill's original transactions in the Journal of Computer-Based Instruction article were primarily targeted at tutorials. More to the present point, we still develop tutorials, though they are much smaller and play a different role than they did ten years ago. Our tutorials, I think, are tactical rather than strategic, since they exist to support a learner's agenda, and are invoked when the learner needs them.
Is it worth the risk to develop it, if there is a chance that we might fail?
By all means! The only way to avoid failure is to avoid trying anything different. Now that I've said that, the ability to fail requires an understanding client/sponsor/manager. Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and other fast-moving companies expect failure some of the time. I don't know how well that plays in universities. It doesn't play well in traditional companies or government either. But that's not where I work.
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?
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'm not sure I understand the connection you're making (Rod) between learner control and transactions. I understand transactions as being dynamic and responding to learner input, but not in the sense of learner control. Can you say more about that?