I have read with great interest your responses and discussion, and will be interjecting some comments. Unfortunately, it may have seemed like I went into covert mode, but it was really forced silence as I was having electronic problems. I apologize for the delay. I am back fully functional and transacting!
There are few ideas that I would like to take up now, and then discuss some of the finer points after my class tonight!
A couple of ideas really intrigued me in this discussion:
1. what makes up a transaction--how big is it? or how is the transaction space defined. there is more to this than just applying criteria from my paper. Many of you had ideas on this and I'd like to take this up later.
2. What is a tutorial? Your idea are interesting about where tutorials fit in the concurrent conception of computer-based instruction (broadly defined)--Rob says they underlie simulations, and Tim adds they underlie EPSS's, and adds they are short pieces--not 20 or 30 minute lessons. I like that--I can't somehow give up on the real need for tutorials--AND believe strongly in learning environments, contextual learning, simulations, etc. It's a nice merger! I've thought about that before, but not really in a definitional way. Maybe here is how we design "finger food" as Georgina was suggesting....AND be able to set in within contextualized instruction--or even put it inside a PSS. Nice!
3. The third very intriguing idea was combining Rob and Rod's discussions. I was still pondering the issue of learner control--finding points 3 and 8 a bit contradictory.But, let's change the perspective of learner control to intentionality. If we use that as the measuring stick, I believe it is the instructor that HAS instentionality (and this is important) AND I believe it is important to transfer that intentionality to the learner. What happens when there is a mismatch in intentionality? If we are in a total learner controlled environment, the learner page-turns through the covert segments? Does what he or she wants? Learns what their "intentionality" intends? If there is a match, the lesson works (works as defined by instructor/designer intentionality). So, what does this mean? Rod, this is an nice added dimension to add to your taxonomy. What do you think about the match/mismatch idea to learner control?
I am thinking then, that for transactions, a covert interaction would work for matched intentionality, but perhaps not for a mismatch.
Of course this is all dependent upon one's philosophical believe about the value of instructor intentionality. That might be off the topic, but a good issue for a later discussion.
This is how I see things shaping up now. What do you think? (Including those of you who are covertly thinking!)