Learner control

As mentioned above, the general trend in CAI is away from the simple tutorial where the computer chats on happily while its partner almost never has any real freedom of word or choice, and towards a more learner-controlled environment, as realized in simulations and games. The Structuring of the material (done by the author in tutorials) is left to the student (which presupposes the student s ability to do so). 

Giving the learner control, and enabling the formation of clear conceptual models... 

HMSs, on the other hand, are learning systems (Duchastel, 1990) they do not tutor, but they are terrific learning resources. HMSs provide full learner control, and indeed, they rely on the student s intelligence and curiosity to make them educationally useful. Thus, they do not contain any pedagogical expertise (as an ITS does). Their main virtue lies in containing interesting information. 

In contrast, HMSs do not adapt cognitively to the student this is their weak point. However, they are very strong in learner control, and thus affectively efficient. What we see in the contrast between HMSs and teaching systems is a trade-off along the cognitive-affective dimension. Each type of system emphasizes one pole of the dimension to the detriment of the other. 

An important way of classifying computer-based learning activities is on the basis of the degree of learner control that the activities permit. Figure 4.1 shows my definition of categories in order of increased learner control as one moves from left to right. 

Fig.4.1. Computer based learning activities ordered according to degree of learner control (arranged from lesser to greater learner control)...

The way in which students are to acquire the cognitive skills is apparent. (There is very little learner control.)... 

Tutorials may offer a bit more learner control than driU and practice activities. This increased learner control results from a somewhat mote extensive branching system. Hence, it is possible to handle a wider class of student responses. Different paths that smdents may follow are linked to a variety of "explanations." The explanations are generally brief and assume a fairly simple model of the rationale for the student s selection of a particular response. 

Exploratory environments, marked by considerable learner controL are generally characterized by several features ... 

I have used the concept of "learner control" to order the types of computer-based learning activities. This same concept could be used to describe variations within a specific type of activity. For example, Duchastel [20] discusses learner control in the context of intelligent computer assisted instruction systems. 

Duchastel, P., Intelligent Computer Assisted Instruction Systems The Nature of Learner Control, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 379- 393.1986. 

Learner and Tsai (2000) also consider the nature of biotechnology alliances and how they are influenced by whether or not they were formed in periods of sufficient external financing. They report that when external financing was more readily available, control was more frequently maintained by the smaller biotechnology company then when external financing was more limited. 

Learner, Josh, and Robert P. Merges. 1998. The Control of Technology AUiances An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry. Journal of Industrial Economics 46 125-156. 

We can conclude the discussion by observing that despite disappointment with outcomes of some earlier projects, the 1980 s brought a renewed commitment to science curriculum reform. In comparison to the earlier reforms the recent science curriculum initiatives identify the teacher or the teacher and learner as the focus of the reform so that curriculum improvement becomes essentially a matter of teacher development. Some curriculum initiatives have tried to accommodate metacognition by fostering students knowledge and awareness of, and thereby control over, their own learning. 

Face-to-face contact with learners is resource intensive and potentially costly. It is therefore important that sessions are well-organised and timely with transparent learning outcomes. Leaders need to be well versed in the system under consideration, its safety features, hazards and controls. Sessions should be supplemented with appropriate course materials for learners to take away and use as reference in the future. Briefing users on safe operation of the system is usually most effective when it is integrated into general system training and undertaken in context with likeminded colleagues. 

Concrete experience usually takes the form of an active task which an individual or group is asked to undertake. This could for example be a scripted scenario which learners work through, operating the system from a set of click-by-click instructions. The learners get an opportunity to see how the system behaves under predictable and controlled conditions. 

Hypermedia systems - particularly those designed with discrete nodes at the level of concepts, and a rich set of links - can enable the learner to explore concepts as required. To be effective, such systems must provide access, guidance and overview facilities at least on par with a book. A lost learner has lost control. A second problem, often overlooked, is how to suggest a suitable order in which to explore information, for those learners who may prefer to be guided. Monitoring the use of prototype systems designed to address these problems - such as [9], outlined in Section 3 - can provide useful evaluative data, difficult to obtain by other means. 

---