by

'Stephen' Kemmis

with
Roderick Atkin
and
Eleanor Ur1ght

A report by-the ONCAL (Understanding

COll1puterAssisted Learning}indeperident
educationaFevaluati6no:ftheNational
Developltr",nt Programme in, Computer'
AssistedLearning.~heUNCALteania.re
Darry MacDonald (Director}, Roderick'
Atkin, David Jenkins, Stephen Kemmis
an': David, Tawney, with occasional
assistance from Robert Stake, Gajendra
Verma and Rob Walker.

Centre for AppUee Researcl). in Education

University of East P,nglia,
D'ecember
1977,
 c,,"
Page
viii
I THE EVALUATION OF STUDENT LEARNING
Chapter 1.
Nomothetic and Idiographic Approaches to the
Evaluation ofCo~pu~erAs$istedLearning.
lilistract: The chapter considers some
problems in evalllation theory approached in
terms of the 'nomothetic/idio\iraphic
distinction in soc.ia1 science research
methodology. It advocates idiographic
methods in the 'evalug,tibn of student
learning as compatible with "illumi-
native and case study approaches to
cllrricu1um evaluation and as especially
he1pjOu1.in,informim ..qecisioI\.,-makers
aPo.Ut learn,ing prqcesses.andoutcomes •.
T!:lecase fo.riclio.g.rClphicmetl!9qsismade
in thecoIlt<lxt of comollt."r .assisted .
learning~and.theUNcr~ in6eoenden,t
edticational evaluation. '.. . ...
22
Chapter 2. Educational Paradiy1l1S for Computer
23
Assisted Learning
Abstract: This chapter presents three
curriculUlll paradigms within which CAL is
justified +neducati0nal terms. They are
the instructional,' the revelatory andt:he
conjectural. l,· possible'four.th paradigm
the emancipatory -- is discussed, thoucJh
it only appears in association with the
other paradigms. Some shortfalls in
achievement of the potential of CAL are
discussed in relation to each of. the
paradis'llls •
il10301,011
~. H -
j
Page
Chapter 3. Computer Assisted Learning, Forms of
Thought and Forms of Action. 34
Abstract:.' This chapterconsiClers the
problem of .what'.is to,·be.learneCl in CAL.
. Starting from.the.premise that CAL.
developers ..often useCAL..in an attempt
to inculcate "high....1ev"'1" learnings, the
1 cllapter .examines two· broad categories of
.educational .goa1s.PllrSl1ed. through
"special purpos"." CAL.m;;lt"rials •.•.These
ar.e fol'lilsof. thought (based on dynamic
2 models. of sUbject.,mattep.wher.e,what is
to be learned il; adYnamic id",a).and
.forms of. action (bal;<;ld on,pr<;lctica1
. situatiQns <lemanding wise judgment .or
prudent action) '.
Chapter· 4. The.Educational. Po.tentiaL of. .computer
Assisted Learning" Qualitative Evidence
50
about S.tudent Learning.
Abstract, ThiS chapter presents a typology
ofstudent,..CAL interactions, based. on
theory and research on. 'learning on the one
hand. and on the claims of C/,lL developers
on the other. 3y focussing on what happens
during the learning proc"ss(interactions),
the typology may assist. the .eva1uators of
CAL materials to describeth<lir educational
potentiaL '£he five types of,i!"lteraction
discussed are: Type A: recognition, Type 3,
recall,.. Type·.O :.reconstruqtiv", .understanding
or comprehension,Type D:· globa1.recon-
strUctiveor intuitiyeW1derstanding; and
'l'Ype E: constructive understanding • i'
rangeof..met.11Odological quei?ti0nsfor the
user of. the. typo1qgy are. rai£led, .and two
applications of its use. are inc1uc1ed as
illustrations ,.
.;. iii -

Chapter 5. ,How' CAL Simulations Work.
llbstract: This chapter attempts to answer
the question "how does a CAL:, simulation work
on us ,to produce a' new: J,ind of tinder-
standing?" 'It makes an arialogybetween
art' and simulation and introduces., the
notions of resonant experiencing and repe·-
:itive or exploratory experienCing, as key
J:actors.inth.. 'kind of,learningbypartici-
'pation engendered by CAL simulations.
Patient maMgement case studies developed
by the Glasgow:ClinicalDebision Haking
Project provide"an illustration, af. how CAL
simulations work to "capture" student
experience and produce' learning, The
limitations of simulationS,'are :considered,
and the notion of the "organon" of knowing
~s introduced as a way of describing the
way experiehce is "captured".' Three other'
examples'of: CAL simulatiohs',arebriefly
discussed interrns, of the ,perspective
generated in the chapter. It concludes
with amethodologica1':nbte and a,post-
script on 'the value of CAL in inducing
structured learnings.,
Chapter 6. How CAL Changes What I.e Think, Curriculum
Evolution· and ForrnsofLife in the Hathe-
mati cs Labcratory (Mll.TLAll)l?roj ect..
(stephen K_is and Eleanor Wright)
.1\bstrac:t: . This highly speculative chapter
represents an attempt. todevelop.a frame\wrk
f.romwhicha thorough-going critique of an
educationalinnovation,:can be generated.
Throug'h,a: disCtiss'1on6f,one innovation in
CliL,itillustrates how.eiifferGnt: "levels" of
curricul1.llll interrelate "in:the process of
curriculUlU innovation, The chapter contains
seven sections:I Introduction: Curriculum
development ?nd CAL innovation; II The Mathe-
matics Laboratory (I~TLI\.B) Project: 'rhe
emergence of a curriculum issue; III Evol-
utionaJ:'Y perspectives on the !~TLAll curriculum;
IV One MATLM course: The Diploma of Manage"
ment Studies; V EvolutionaJ:'Y perspectives
overview, VI CAL innovation ane1 curriculum
development, lA, spread of effect~ and VII How
CAL Changes what we think, Conclusion.
- iv -
Page
Page
98
I II fOWARDSA LEARNINGJ"tIEORY 211
Chapter 7. "!'he Problem 'of Attainment: Private
Knowledg~ 'and Public Discourse. 212
Abstract, This Chapter is concerned to
es tai>1:tsh a. theor"~icalpo,,ition on
, 'leprll~ll9" to provide, 11 l:las~s ,.: for thinking
about, studentattilillljlent via CIu,. It
setS :. 01.1~, liI,i tations of conventional
'thiUking cl)out attainment ~-essentially,
the problem of considering learning
sta1;.ically :-.. and examines some of the
educational and evaluation implications
of thatvie'l. In order, topJ:'ovidG a
realistic illustration which willJ?ose
the problem of the nature of learning
more shaJ:'ply, the c.'lapter goes on, to
explore a complex area of human thinking
decision-making. The final section
describes the method of· "structural
analysis" as appropriate for coming
to understand learning.
Chapter 8. Notes towards a Theory of Student-CAL
Interactions. 280
141 l\bstract: These notes present a number of
consid"rationsto be.taken into account in
developing, atheoJ:y af student-CAL inter-·
actions. Several methoe,ologieal issues
are addressed, but the prime pUJ:'pose of
the netes· is to introduce and explore the
notions of clynamic structures (d-structures;
what is learned) and functional structures
(f-structures,structured aspects of.the
learning context which create and constrain
q.>portunities for learning). Four general
classes of f-structures relevant in dis-
cussing the learning process in CAL are
identified: those ,relating to subject-
m(.ltter, p(~dago9Y; operating systems and
milieu.
- v -
 Page
Page

Chapter 9. Notes tCvlards a Theory of Learning and

Experience and aNatural ,History of
Learning Experiences. 320 Profile 8. The London Business SChool Management
Decision Making (LBS/MDM) Project.
Abstract: Thesenotes suggest hoW a (By Roderick Atkin). 372
theory 6f learningbaseCl (mthe notion of
interaction may be articulated. On the 377
Profile 9. The Mathematics Laboratory (MATIJID) Project.
b<,!sis of suCh a theory it b"comes possible
to describe learning interactions and
thusto'coznplete'theevaluation task; Profile 10. 'TheLoc<il History Classroozni?roject (LliCP). 382
thatiS,to sive intElres~ed parties access
to the mitureof the learning processes
, created by a curric;ulumirinovaticn.

IV V CON~LUDINGCOMMENrS .386
PROF I LES OF THE Ii/ORK OF SOME: COMPUTER
l\SS I STED LEARN I NG PROJECTS I N THE NATI ON.';L
PROGRAMr-JE:~WITH,SPECIAt REFEREillCE TO
REFERENCES 409
STUDENT LEARiH :\jG. 340

Profile 1. The Glasgow 13asi,C Mathematics Project. 341

APPENDIX; UNCAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 423
Profile 2. The Leeds Applied statistics for Social
Science Students Project. 346

Profile 3. The Computer Assisted Learning in Chemistry

(CALCHEM) Project. 350

Profile 4. The Engineering Sciences Project (ESP).

(By Roderick Atkin) • 355

Profile 5. The Computers in the Undertjraduate

Science Curriculum (CUSC) Project. 359

Profile 6. The· Glasgow Clinical Decision Making

Project (GCDM). 363

Profile 7.· TheCOlllPutatio~al.Physics Teaching

Laboratory (CPTL) Project.
(By RoderickAtki~) . 368

.- vi - - vii -
----------~~-""""""-"',"''",''"'%'''',
------_Tililmii'iii!¥iiiillI1fiii!'*!&!i%'!Il'
Iiii' i'Mmill';Ui,
• ""iIil,··O;',;.;'.
; £• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
....

~lher<l brutesc;epticism ~les, eV<lry present th",9ry of learning

must opmec;rashing (Jowll. The histo:!;,] of science is littered
This book is <>.bout learning., And Ii for, one" am not sure \d th the ruins, of our bes>t undersj:andings. Copernicus falls
what that means. to Galileo, Galileo to N€Mton, Newton to Einstein. But now we
do not claim that our progress is progress towards the llbsolute.
The process o.f learn~l1g is> so. familiar t..'lat... most of us
"",
It is, prO'Jress.towC>.rqs coherence not an eternal order, but
simply do not recognise that it presents problems for our under-- order in the millqs of men, living in spC>.ce and time , with
standing. From the perspective of everyday life, learning particular historically-located per:;pectives and problems.
simply is it seems unnecessary to say more. For teachers
We !:lave co\Ue farel1oug!:l. in ",ducation~l psychology to
and students, however, there is clear.1ya need ,to' kllowmore
<>.bout it. So it is that philosophEJrs, psychologists and social begin t<:> .see that it is, no longer blind igllorance that prevents

scientists try to step outside human eA~erience to look back us from seeing d",eper into th'" process qfl",arning. It is the
in -- they search for p epee
rs t'J.ves f rom wnic
' h the inj:erw",aving blinding light of our t)resent kno\fledge. Our theorieS stand

patterns of experience can be identified, from which the betw<len us an,dt,he shimmerin<j process, . reflecting old colours
uncompr~ended familiar can be reconstituted as the known. and old forms,showingus again~nd agai l1 the shapos WE; know
and distracting us from ne\f patterl1S> only haH'T"recogrlised"
\'Ie do have lanyuages -- theories -- for talking about' t.'1e flickering. ill front of us.' and .yanish:i.ng b",fore we can see them
procoss of learning. They have yielded some valu<>.ble insights clearly. And e"l?ei:ienc<ltea¢les .)lsthat behind tl!ose fOr\Jls
into the learning process. But we are far from understanding will lie still other unseen patt<lrns yet to be identified or
its nature, Our theories are only primitive beginnings in oven, imagined.
educating our understandin9. The theor<ltical systems we have
so far constructed -- metaphors, models, cosmologies -- have Vie mnst'llli'lke new.theories.thatwil,l conserve the forms
a lot of growing to de before our perceptions of the learning we. know and yet reflect the now gnd half-seen forms more

process are fUlly consummated in understanding. '1'h6Y are clearly. We must ,conjecture new, theories and submit them to
mere flirtations with the learning process, new processes of refutation.

Each new phenomenon recognised, named, and found its We se€;matter as it :l:"eflects. itself in light. We come

place in the partial order of our present understandings to kno" better how it behaves in light as we explor", it beyond

carries with it remnants 6f our present misunderstandings. the range of the visible spectrum - in tl1e extremes of infra-
rod and,ultra~violetand then beyond into ••• will we still
Each new theory carries the seods of its own destruction.
call it light?

- viii ~.
- ix -
 But matter has other dilliensions, too", that we' see when'
first we recognise it. And these dimensions must be recen··
cUed to otir understandings of matter in light., Ileight
'becomes mass, 'lllass, too, becomes energy.
So i t is' ~Iith tile process' of learning'. , . "BecatiSe much of
our visible ctilture is 'carried 'inwards,' much', of-the energy'
of educational psycl1016gists over the last seventY"years has
been in tile investigation of verbal learning and tile
acquis:l.tionof language.' "Because JUuch of action is perceived
in movement (conceived:l.n'tetllls·ofmuscularmovement),
behaviouristlearnihg psychologists 'have invested much energy
ininvestigatlng theacqu.i.siti6n of motor skills." At the ends
of the "verbal' spectrum"; learning psychologists have becj'un to
study co9nit.i.on conceived in terms of semantics, psycho-
linguistics -and the naturE' of thought beforeit emerges in
speech. And physiological psychologists have studied neUrology
and biochemistry' to discover thewell-spriIlgs of human ,action.
One theme that dominates this book is that of knowledg.e
beyond words and beyond mere movement. It concerns knowledge
• such concessions to complexity.
and its relation to';xperience; In the chapters that 'follow,
we wi.ll attempt to go beyond the spoken word and the motor
movement and to reconcile· thcught and acticnina view. of
knowledge tilrOUgh experience.
'.rhe. reader will jUdge for hi.rilself" whether the kites we
are constructing can fly.
III tilese working papers, wewillbecorisidering learning
in tile context of computers. Our" problem; "hOw do students
- x .•
learn?", is thereforeaddr,essedthrough a~lideyariety of'
types of learning which go on when s,tudents l"Clrn from or
through computers. The process of learning; as ,it manifests
itself in these contexts ;,thus" takes on J)),any, different ,forms.
Perhaps it appears div"rs€> simply be,CCluse ,we call Clll, these
different processes ,by,thEl on""nClme "l€>arning". Perhaps,it
appears, so, ·becatiS,e ,we, use' CI' vClriety of ,dif:eElr€>nt J;;inds,of,
languag€>s (e.g .curriculum-theor€>tic, p,sychological", COlJl11lon-
sElnse)..to talk Clboutit '" Nev"rtheless ,prudely spEl1\l(ing, w"
would wClnt, to say. th,Cltstudents ,alWaYS ,l"a;t"l},' from,.their
"xperi"ncesofcomput"rassisted 'l"Clrning" (c;AL), t,hough th"ir
learnings mClY be quitedifferen,t ,from, those "xpElct"dor
int"nd"d by th"ir tElClche,rs .,Thisass;'lUlption that, s'!:\ldents
al~taYs leClrn imposes a J;;in,dof unity on our enqui;t"Y, and forces
us , to . S,ee it in, te:r;ms qf other q'"erarching ',and 'iln:i'Wi'hq.
concepts liJ;;e thought, Clction,J;;nowledg",. Clnd"xperiElIlce. It
would be possible to proceed with our investigation Witil far
less global perspectives, and wemight,t:hEln be ablEl,to skirt
around 'some profound though stic:ky l?roi:>l.,ms., But ne,ither. the
language of those ponc:erned, with the, learning in, CP<.L nor the
interests of developers, teachers I stud"nts and others make
A concern for the real-:life
of educational practiceobligEls us,\:oadqpt naturalistic
methods', and to, cobble,\:ogethElr our an?lysis as best WE' can.
, Only.. by oonfronting. the .complexities of education as r.endered
in. our language abo.ut it, 1'!nd. by rec09nisin<;iits cRhe:rence in
the life th1'!t is educational practice, <;:an.we hope to educate
our understandings about it -- though in the process we
inevitClbly pose more problems tilan we solve.
The National.DevE'lo.pment Programme in Comput"rAs~is,\:ed
Learning was set up in 1973 to explore tile potential of
- xi -
computers as ,tools for' teaching and, learning. Hith a bUdget
0;;; E2~6 millions over,'fiveyears, it',has funded some thirty-
five projects and studfes whichha,vedeveloped ,a wide range
,of CALapp1ications; As,a 'delib'"rate policy, these applications
ofCAI.have taken place in real-life' contexts, of institutional
education. Wi,th, f1f:wexceptions (.thoughleaving' aside pilot
trials, of CAL ma:terials) these' <':ilL innovations ,have been intro-
'(Juced intoa'variety of courses -"' ,the exploration of its
potentialhi'l.si'taken plac8,under reaLrather than artificial
conditions. Without the simplification made possible by ,trying
it out· i.Il artificiai settings, ,evaluators of CAL in ' the
National 'Prog-raJllllle interested in infO%1lling judgments about it
are thus obligedtoconfroIlttheeomplexityof educational
i.ssues surrotiIlding it; to ignore the complexity Or to reduce
it by artificial means is to give up the task of evaluating
cAI.as:itappears in the National 'Prograii,me.
The work presented here has been' ciWriedoutas part of
the UNCtlL (understanding.ComputerAssist"d'Learning) independent
educatiortaI 'evaluation of tlleNDPCAL. 'The UNCIIL' eValuation
nas spanned £6u:i:years, and is charged with evaluating the
NDPc.~ as a meChanism for educationalinnovationi the politics
and process of aaol(tion of.innovation'andthe educational
potential of CAL, We define its work iriterms of conceiving.,
obtaining and commulticating information, for· the .guidance, of
decision-makers. 'The evaluation of student learning through
'CAL is oIle aspect of m,CliL's work.
Witl1in UNCAL, I have had a special'responsibilityforthe
problem of student learning. For three of, m"CAL' s four years,
lhaire had £'1e opporttiIlityto observe ana to make sense of
- xii -
the process of learning thrpugl\CAL., This ,collection of
working papers is onedf the outcomes of that work.,
I ami by training, an educational psychologist and an
evaluator.. I CaIne to' the UNCAL evaluation of the NDPCl',L with
concerns about the natUre of learning und the value of
convention~ieducationalpsychology for discussing questions
of educational significance. It is no surprise, therefore,
that I. found tli.e~~ concerns reflected in 'the CAL work of the
National Programme; But neither ,is it a surprise that these
concerns existed within the National Prograllll!le -- they are
endemic to educational'development,and'evaluation and
repeatedly found expression in the c,oncerns of pari:icipunts
in the Programme.
Educati.onal evalua.tion is a 'young but fast-growing field.
. ,.
It may s1.1rpris," some.r:eaders to ill.sC:over thi\i:./iri spite of
its thirty""yearhist6ry' as a recognisable specialism, no
conVentiol\alproced.ures existfprjoirtt.1ycromnrehEmqing the
many levels at which the'process 6fcurriculuminnovation
takes place. InnOVations in CAL are no <lxception.
Consider the f~l.l.o~in<Jmatte~s.,i'll1of which roust be
taken intoacc:oUrit in reaChin,:]' all evaluation ofC1L work
produceClunder the auspicespf 1:I)e National 1'r6gramme. Thirik
theriof how an evalutltionmight proceed which can take account
of the diversity of prol:>l"'11ls they pose.
- CAL is nota unitaryed~c:<lti.9Ilaltec1ulblogy i it is
incredibly diyerse. I,n the. NationalprogJ:'amme , CAL
appli.cations~pan sU~~9imensions asea~cati~nal sector
(.schools, further and higher education, 'the armed
- xiii -
 fhrces ,industry) ; subject-matter (e.g. mathsi physics, context to judge educational merit. Those whC! would
cheznistry, biology, engineeri.~g,geography, history.,. des cr1J:)e cAI,work (even within the limits' bf the
medicine, management) f role or computer (tutorial, diversitY-of the NatiorialProgramme) . strive hard to
simulation, modelling, calculation, etc.); styles or create illlagesand articul.ate' languages ,which honour
. product .(programs ,. pa<;kages, cou,rlil8 .modules "etc.) , the Uriiquek.inds of potential of different ki.,ncls of
degre<;s or integration intocour~es (from "stand CALmaterial;;. .,
alone" packages to highly integrated) ,individlial 'and
group .use, "on-line'~ . ana
"orl,:-line"l"!l'J,rning;' l:ll'\tch,
int0ract+ve and "interac:tiy.e~batch" processing.:
differerit sizes andcapacities':or ciomputers; '. a variety
of types,o:f,interracehar4ware' (YPU,tfilletyp""etc.) ,
differfilnt~tgles ors9fa~aredevelopm~nt (author
'langtiages vS. FORTRAN/BASIC, etc;; teacher-developed
VS.' sJ?ecialist~programm$proq!.lced); and so on.

- Curriculum develo,persuse different rhetorics to justify

their work. These rhetorics address different levels
of concerns ' abot1.tt..1iecur:t.1c:uluini In the National
Programme there are rhetorics for discussing educational
values (e.g. the autonomy of the learner vs. the
autonomy of th,; teacher); pedagogical strategy (e.g.
direct instruction vs. discovery learning VB", enquiry
learning), student learning (facts vs. comprehension
vs,' understanding vs. intuition, etc.) and many more.
Each such. level"" adas a different dill\ensi()n to the,
;0

overall picture of til,e curriculum in actiol'l, but,they

, j'ostle against one 'another in the claims made by ,
developers. about the poteptial of ChL.

- The a1msbf a curriculum developmerit project change as

the project proceeds. As National Programme CAL
developers have gained experience with different types
of CAL, their views about what is pos'sible through CAL
evelve. Moreover,·. deVelopers reco<Jl)i~"" that some kinds
of ob~ectivesare Illore easily evaluatedc.l};m others.
Some argue (extemporising on a 'theme' expressed by Barak
Rosenshine)· that "some, objectives are notll\easurable --
our project <lid best on those".

- Curriculum developers who see their materials used in

a variety of con~ex1fb.ecomeaware that what is learned
depends upon ,th~context ofiearriing. IIi describing the
appl~catiof1s of .cAL
lnthe National progrCll!ll!le , it soon
beco.mes <.'bvious
", ;-'. ..
,"
tliat '.it is 'necessary
'.,' .
.... '. , .... to see learning in
",

- xiv -
- xv -
 The test situatiqn i.s usllally di.stant from the These papel':s.haye been co~iled in the present volume
learnillSl situcttion ~',- test data may . fragll1ent. our
wtdel':st;,mdings .0£ how C.'\Lworksby lack of atten- f9:r people interested ill theprocE:'ss of le.arn:l,l7lg, for users
tion to the iearnin9'~)rocess in cOntext. TCi judge and potenti",l/llSel':sOf C;Ij:.,. and. fpr those whomusteyaluate
the value of the lea~ingprocess·engenderedby
CIlL we must look at the· learnin<;( sitllation, not the . educationetl potenti,al of. spec:ific CIlL applicatiqns.
base our judgments on backward inferences from
outc:ome measures made using tests of unknown.ol':
~akent9Y'?ther, thapapers.present ClIlevolvingvi.ew of
Aubi.0us validity ana. reliability.
C-!lli and its .,?duc:ational potentiaL as. :re.alised in t!:l.e work of
(e) Potentiaiusers O(¢ALClIldepuCationai admini-
stl':atorsusu~llYdrawtheir.owIl conclus10ns about the National grograrmne •.. II1 one way 9r ClIl9tlle:r, t1:lElyall
on
CAL -~conclusiCJnsw1:lich, ilre l':eac1:led the basis concern the problem of e7aluating student learning:t!:lrC\ugh
of their own edllcational values and their
particularperspectivj3s, They can m*e these CIlL -- hence the title "Bow Do Students Learn?". lJut they
evaluations on the basis of well~describ~dexamples conC!\=:rn. iS~l,1es of widElrsigl7lifica....ce t!:l.ClIl Ci'lL,. mostly because
(,fCALin action, which may or may not-include
in orde:rto gain a critical 9:raspof t!:le work qf t!:le National
test data, Case stlldY,portray<:jl andcl':iti.que
are more likely to feed their juagments t1:lan E:rogramme, it.has bElen nec:essaryto see. that work from a
purely quantitative data.
wide1;perspectiye. . $0 .the. papers stray from, tile p,articulars
of the National ,Prog:rammE:' into issues of el?istelllol<m!'(the
To cope with these issues, the UNCIlL team h,as hetd to step
studY of. thE:'nat.ul':e.ClIldconditionf:; of knowledge), curriculum,
back from conventional evaluation procedures. In order to
e4ucationalpsyc:h,019QY and evaluati011 theory. Once having
evaluate the CIlL work produced in the National Programme, we
gClined SUCll .1\\. perspectivE:'~ it becomes pos!libleto generate a
have. been obligedtb spend· some· of our time· on evalUation
critiq\1,e of .CALin gene:ra,l and its,applicationsinthe
re.seal':ch -- .W'hich .feeds and is fedbyou.r .evaluation activities
various projects in parti.cular.
in thEl Niltional Programme. It seemS to us somewhat paradoxical
that i~ evaluation,fieicr.-lorkers h''lVeto justify everything
~hel:look is not. intended to sJ)lllll\arise the achievements
they do; in l':esearch, many oJ. these justifiqations ar:e taken
of CAL· projects.. inth.e NOPC;Ij:.. Suer.· .summaries are to some
forgtanted. The question of'justific:ation is obviously
extent provided in the Director's Final Report on the National
salient in evaluation -- all those. involved have an intel':est
Programme (liooPel':, 1977) and the fim\lreport of the inde-
in what methods are used.l'articipants especially recognise
pendent financial. evaluators (Fielden and .Pea;sSIl( 1977) •
that the' frameworks for :itids;inent used by' their evaluators will
The projects ,: too, cau.all provide substantial information
affect the public:· reputation of tlidr work. In these papers,
on their ac:h,ievelll'?I\ts. --these are availabl" from projElcts in
we attempt 't;odescribeho""CALh.i\ls e"!.ucati',mal.potential and,
the form Of internal t ..chnical pav";s and in published books
by setting out ourperspecHves, to jusHfy:ourviews of
and articles.
evaluation, CAL and learning.

.. xvii -
- xvi -
 Neither is the collectioniritendedto giver an overview
dip into the collection rather than to read it from start
Of the National Progrllmlneani:l'its' projects or ofCJ.'.L as a
to finish. This is a collection of working papers, not a
medium; suclioverviews are' available' in ·'UNCAI.' s final report
final synthesis to be read as a narrative. Though the papers
on the National Progrllmln,,(HacDOnald{ lilt al. unaerstanding
are not reproduced in chronological order, each one bears a
computer i1ssisted Learning), the Director's final report
date so its place in the evolution of the overall perspective
(already'cited), ani~sue. bfthe Britisn'Journalof Educational
can be identified. No one chapter summarises the perspective
TecMology(October, 19'77, voL 8, no; 3) devoted entirely to
as a totality (Chapter 9 goes close, but it presents a very
CAL, anel a
vat-ietYOf books' and artidlespublished by NDl?CAL
global picture of learning not yet pinned dO\m as the c.'\L
"Participants.
context). Section V does revisit the issues raised
in earlier chapters in providing concluding remarks.
, Tn'; first'sactiori Of this colleotion (elk 1) provides a
pa.rtial answer to' the' question' "h6w can the p()tentialo£ CAL
I would like to acknowled0e the special help of my UNCAL
be' evaluat",d?" bY'touching especially Oil rtha' relatiOn between
colleagues, Barry MacDonald, Rod Atkin, David Jen.'cins, David
evaluation' at the level of studentlearllingandevaluation at Tawney and Gajendra Verma, who have prOVided invaluable
the level Of what Par1et1:and RaiiiHtori(l972}call the critical support. I would also like to thank those project
"learning 'mitieu". The seconasection"'isconcerneawith personnel who have tried out some of the ideas developed here
computer ass:Uited learning at several levels:' '''What are the and generously given me feedback on their utility. Thanks
curricular 'frameworks (para<ll9ms), ,';it.~in 'which 'different kinds
are also due to that larger number of project people who have
of CZu,are justified?"; "how dOes c.'\L ,'r!roduce ' its effects given me the privelege of acc"ss to their >lark. On the
on students -- aspecially that 'effect', we call, ',learning'?" ,
production side, I must thank Sylvia Cooper, Glynis Freeman,
and "what is learned through CAL?" The third section
Kirsten May, Terry Loan (who designed the cover), and the
, considers the nature of IGarning itself' '--'\'what kind of
team of CARE students who helped with the reproduction of the
thing is learning that it 'canl:>e influenca'dbyCAL?',' mimeos, wi thout whom •••.••• 'I'hanks too, to Relert for her
help and tolerance, and to Standish and Jessica who did their
For thoseun£aroiliar with the educational work ,of CAL best to keep the papers short.
projects ill.t.~eNational ProgrClnlJlle; Section IV presents ten
"Project Profiles". These mayputsollleflesh on the bones of
the analyses. '(Several other' chapte:i!s· contain critiques of
aSl,a'ctsof the c..'U/work of partidhar·projeets).

The rE<ader may prefer to skim the contents pages of

this volume (where abstracts of the papers are reproduced) and

- xviii - - xix -
 Recently, leafing . through some. of the plates. of Diderot' s
Encyclopaedia,. An Analytical Dictionary of the Sciences, Arts and
Trades, :J: ~as, strl,lck bythean<J,lytic power brought to t.'le ~Iorld of
HOf~tOTHET I C ,L\~n) I DI OGRr~.PH! G eighteenth ce~turytechnology by its authors}' 2. Each plate
;"PPROACHES TO THE EVALU/\·nON illustrel1::es some m"chine or production process labelled by its
OF COMPUTE~ ASSISTED LEARNING * component parts;. as much,as any single work, the Encyclopaedia
"created' the.,notion of ~ componenti.sation ~. The notion of.
replaceable parts is now so profound a part of our thinking that
it is difficult to think of anything that cannot be componentised
in this way, that is, dismantled.or broken down and then (in
Abstract: The chapter considers some problems in thought at .least) put bq.ck tqge~her again. As <). tool for thought,
evaluation theory approached in terms of the
nomothetic/idiographic distinction in social the notion of componentisatiDn is incredibly j)owerful,but it'!'
science research methodology. It advocates idiographic heuristic. value may.cl.+.sr;pi.";2 its more destructj,v". implications •
methods in the evaluation of student learning as
compatible with "illuminative" and case study It is the analytic, pro.ce"'i>of componentisat;.ion which creates
approaches to curriculmn evaluation and as especially fragment"tiqn.3 We can think of the bicycle as nothing more than
helpful in informing decision-makers about learning
processes and outcomes. The case for idiographic t.~e sum of ,its parts and expect it to,wqrk again after .we,have
methods is made in the context of computer assisted dismantled it on the geragefloor. Likewis8$ th~ steam engine can
learning and the m~CAL independent educational
evaluation" be broken do,~n then put back together a;",j.n into a working machine.
But we do not expect the frog to live through the dissection job.

We may be faced with a similar. probJ:.'ID in education: will our

ana.l.ytical dismantling" ci the phenom",,,,, of education enable us to
put together~.be~ter.~0Ke co~e~en~ pa~~Q~o,:~~o~~ worthwhile

educational,experiencG ~ OJ:" build a1?e~!=s~~ ~)0ciety? Or doe::; ,the

* This paper appeared in the Journal of Curriculum Studies, a,nalys i,.:3.dq viol,ence t::.
1977, 10. An earlier version was presented to the
SSRC Research Seminar on Computers in Education held concernedw~t::h "tll0 ~~oc.es.:3 :)f ,edu.catio.~~; -;',he evaluator, mus"': ,choose
at the University of W<J,rwick, Coventry, July 14-16, 1976. his methods. carefull" if he .is to avoid a charge of vivisection.

- 3 -
 computer assisted learning (CAL) is an enormously exciting
technology for education but too often the use of technology in
education has led to a technologisation of our view of education, and
a componentisation of the educational process in the notion of
'instructional design'. It remains an open question whether the
language and the technology of CAL can avoid fragmenting the subtlety
and the coherence of the educat:lorialprocess.
Thecllrrent rhetoric of'iridiVidml1isation, especially in the
U.S.A.,'ha.s contribut:edto the techJ'iologisation of our view of
education. Given defilled learning objectives arid learninc:fsequences,
tI,e problem of individualisation is one of match:lng instructional
sequences to indi'llidualdifferences. Technology maybe employed in
order to allow the teacher to meet the illc:reaseddemandsof managing
students through,the definec1instructional sequences. The'computer
has been seen as a powerful ma.nagement device because it appears to
be capable of keeping track of individual studeritsand respOnding to
them oipresciibing for them'in spite of wide variations in ability,
learnirigstylesand learning rates. Yet McClellan(1972) has pointed
out that another view of individualisatioll is possible, one which does
not take comn:ion objec-=ives as given~' The problem 6firidividualisation
here is to respond to each student's Clwnpurposes. In this view,
there maybe as'many learning sequences as there are stud~nts. In the
one case; individUalisation is conceived'as optimisirigstudent
performance towards given aims (a t:echnologyof education), in the
other as optimising instruction towards students' own aims, (perhaps
with the use of technology in education).
These two views have markedlydifferentimplicationsror the
evaluation of student learning • The success or failure of'
.
instructiori' under the first model can be defined in terms of the size
of the discrepancy between intended and actual student performance.
This, essentially; is the modeFof evaluation outlined by Tyler in
his landmark paper for educational evaluation (Tyler, 1949). W1,ere
students are not expected to attain common objectives, however, the
Tylerian model is strained to the breaking-point. If the instruction
- 4 -
is not defined as unitary, it may still make 'some'sense to evaluate
'instruct:l9nal provision in terms of the summ~d di~c~epancies between
Stlldentgoals a.nd performance, but the model quickly becomes un-
workable.' (I~ students Canqef:lrie their purpos~~sUfficiently
carefuliytomake measurements of discrepancy possible, then the
instructiorih~rdlyseemsnecessaryr. What: seems to be called for
in ,the second case is a model of evaluation based not upon subject-
matter/performancediscrepancy~utuponafuiie:r:,descl:'~ption of the
learninc;:rp:r:ocess i:t:self. In sho%,t, the, technol,ogic:alviel~ of
education ,as a series,of instrUCtional t:t'ea:t:ments,whichar~ '~pplied'
to students PFedisposesthe,evaluator towards
, 'nomothetic' methods,
"" . " .::
' .... ' " .
while the alternative conception will predispose eval\lation towards
'idiographic:' methods.
Nomotheti~ and idiograppic approaches
The distinction between nomotlletic apd id~ograph~c approaches
inpsycho19GY is a, venerable one. It was int~oduc:ed to social
science in 1894 by Wilhelm Windelband, the German philosopher of
social science '19~t the terms have comEl to p",used ~n psychology
(e.g.l\.llport'/Marx, 1963, p.42), 'nomo:t:he;ti9,' approaches are those
concerned with establishing laws, (based 011 the model of the
Naturwissenschaften; approximating natural science methods) and
'idiographic:' approaches are those conCerned ,with,the intensive
st,-!dy of,i.ndividuals (based on the mode,l of Geistes~lissenschaften
or he:r:meneutic, sciences; approximating the methods of the
'U11derstanding' or interpretative sciences like history). In the
1940sand '50s there was some debate about the relative strengths
of the twoapPJ::oaches, especially with resp,ect to the develoPment
of ,theory in clinical and developmental p~ychOlogy, but it seemed
to end in ,a s,talemate, the general view was simply that each had
its place. Melvin ~arx adopted this view" but (rather cunningly)
collapsed,idiographicapproaches pack towards the nopothetic:
-- 5 -
 There does not seem to be any way around ~~e proposition,
that science is concerned with generalities and abstractions,
and that'these depend upon comparisons of many cases; However,
it may be suggested that more ,attention be paid to nomothetic
problems,involving int~a-organismic development and
organisations. Principles of this nature are necessarily
based upon ,similarities among individuals discovered as
a result of int~nsi;re study of a numberof individual
subjects. They may be considered as complementary to the
more common laws of' general behavio,ur functions, which are
ordinarily based upon .a large number of less intensive
observations. ' (p. 312, italics in origirial) •
Marx's view of $Cience is rooted in the highly positivistic view of
psychology current duiing the 1950s(when his paper first appeared) ..
and literally does not countenance the philosophical foundations of
the idiographic approach. ~hus it comes as no surprise that his
view of idiographic methods is that they are pre-experimental,
allowing induction of similarities from many individual cases to
provide a foundation for the more 'common" (that is, more widely-
accepted) nomothetic approach. Marx's view of the idiographic
approach cah J:)e<cbntrastedw.ith that of Piaget (though piaget has
never, to my kribwledge, characterised his method as idiographic).
Piaget'" 'clinicalmethod'forllluiated by 1929, provides an
example of the idiographic approach, and his theory of genetic
epistemology demonstrates the'implications of adopting it. In one
sense it does exemplify a nomothetic approach (in Marx's sense)
"involving intra;'organismid development and organisation", but the
nature of Piaget's'general theory of development' is fundamentally
at odds with the view of psychological laws proposed by Marx,
At its'root, the differencebetweert the views is concerned with
the nature of generalisation, the nature of explanation, and the
>
nature of social science itself. The history of social science has
resounded unremittingly with the clashes of viewpoints on these
issues almost since the distinction was f.irstposed (for example, in
the long behaviourist-GCstalt.ist debate of the 1930s-40s), von
Wright (1971) poses the difference between the underlying views of
science concisely 4
,. 6 -
All th~sethinkers (the anti-positivists) reject the
methodological monism of positivism and refuse to view
the pattern set by the exact natural sciences as ~~e
so~e and supreme ideal for a rational~~de~standing of
reality. Many of them emphasise a contras't between those
sciences which, like physics or chemistry or physiology,
aim at generalisations about reproducible and predictable
phenomena, and those which, like history, want to grasp the
i~dividual and unique features of their objects, Windelband
c:cined the label ."nomothetic"fQr scieIlces, which ",e",roh
fo" ] f\WS , and "idiographic" for the descriptive study of
i,U.1, v·;.duality. "
'J'heant~,-positivists also attackedthe positivist vie,~
of ",'C;'lanation. The German historian-philosopher Droysen
,a;"""r,·,·3 to have been the first to, introduce a methodologici'il
di 'C ~.c'tomy •whi,ch has had great influence. ,He coined for it
the "~'lles explanation and understanding, in German Eklaren
and Verstehen. The aim of the natural ,sciences, he said, is,
to explain; the aim "f history is to understand the phenomena
which fall within its domairi. (p.S)
Lat'2r" von Wright points out that
It would surely be an illusion to think that truth itself
unequivocally sided with one of these two opposed positions.
In saying this I am not thinking of the triviality that both
positions contain some truth and that a compromise can be
achieved on some questions. This may be so. But there is
also basic opposition, removed from the possibility both of
reconciliation ano. of refutation,- even, in a-sense; remoyed
from truth. It is built, into ,the choice of primitives, of
basic concepts for the whole argumentation. This choice,
one could say, is "eXistential". It is a choice of a point
of view which cannot be further grounded. (p.32)
It therefore seems that to argue for one or other of these approaches
is a sterile exercise: in time, surely, the 'defeated' alternative
will rise again and attract its adherents. But the point of the
present discussion is not to decide t~e ultimate primacy of one of
these" approaches; it is to determine how the real, current issue
of evaluating student lei'irning in different curricular contexts is
to ,be handled. 4
'
- 7 .•
The Nomothetic/Idiographic Issue in Educational Evaluation Many curricul~l evaluators would be willing to assert that their
lack of attention to issues of student learning is an accurate reflection
In the context of educationalevaluation,l:l6th natural science
of the interests of decision-makers: often the references of decision-
and hermeneutic approaches have their champtions. Foremost,among the
rnakers to student performance are no more ti1an rhetorical forms which
proponents of the natu~a\~science/n~moth~ticview are such luminaries
disguise political motives, But the persistence of the 'rhetoric
as Cronbach (1963), Anderson' (1970)" Campbell (1969) , Lindvall. and
simultaneously demonstrates the difficulty of prOViding unequivocal
Cox (1970), and stanley (1972). This group seesevaluation methodology
evidence about learning and the importance of tile issue as a potential
as essentially isomorphic with nomothetic educational research method-
sourCe of justification. Only the most hardened cynic woul~ regard it
ology (though Cronbachand Suppes (}96i1) have emph~sisedthe distinction
as irrelevant.
between 'conclusion-oriented' and 'decision-oriented' ·research). They
have come under increasing attack from ag-rotipI have. characterised as
Idiographic evaluation offers the means by which these issues can
adopting a 'hermeneutic' approach (Kellimis, 1976)'. Clear examples
be resolved. It provides an alternativ.e to the nomc,thetic a]?proach to
of those adopting a hermeneutic approach include pa:rl~tt. and
student learning which is com]?atiblewith the concerns of the
Hamilton (1972), who developed L~e notion of 'illuminative'. evaluation,
hermeneutiq evaluator for the learning milieu-·~ theco,ndit.ions of
and Stake (1975a) who has developed the approac:hhEl caiis'responsive'
learni~g-- but it also provides for the legitimate :interests of
evaluation. These evaluation theorists have emphasised the importance
. ,-
decis~on-'IIiaKers ~n ' t h'3 1 earn~'ng _'tself.• In __ .
'd'('graphic evaluation the
of understanding the educational milieu arid ha'verejected the nomOthetic
central educational question is tilus preserved.
approach as over-restrictive. Recently, much attention has been given
to case-study and 'portrayal' as methodological tools forhetmeneutic
Only one clearly idiographic model in the.hermeneutic tradition
evaluation (see, for example, HacDonald and.. Walker .1}975} and.Stake
seems evident in the current st~dent eva~uation .1i~e~ature~ ~itZi
C1975a, 1975bl). These hermeneutic appr()ache~c()uld hardly he .
Gyodwinand,E~sley's ; cognitive model for the ~valua~i?n qf units of
described' as ", idiographic' " ,ho'~ever i since they seem. to involve. a
instruction' (1974). It does have tile disadvantage,of adopting a
shift of level from learning outcomes'tolearning context. Itis
rather narrow view of the educational process (being concerned with
important to note that this is not necessarily a. shift from student
evaluating 9 un its of instruction 1 ) but even so; it is well worth
learning in vacuo to student learning in situ.
reproducing th8 bare bones of the.mo~el here~

The 'change'from 'quantitative' to 'qualitative' methods 'in
curriculum evaluation has be~ri provoked at least in part by tile short-
comings of nomothetic method~ in the measurement of student learning.
Curiously the sudden change in the tide of evaluation theory has left
the prcblem of evaluating student learnlr;.g sti-andeaabove the waterline.
Those adopting 'the 'new' methods either give scant attention ..to the
problem, preferring instead to concentrate on political or contextual
factors related to curriculum decision-making, or else they treat
student learning as it were anachronistically,. using the 'old'
metilods. In general, the hermeneutic approach has not been applied
at tile student learning level.
(1) Does tile unit recognise natural components, which are
sub:components.of OU~ own~ Or,d08$ it cut across
components and by this disregard for natural cognitive
processes and their natural order (x is a pre-requisite
for y) make. learning unn"cessarily difficult?
(2) Does the unit give the background knowledge of the
child a chance to COille into play?
(a) Which of the specific interactions of
background knowledge with. tile material are
actually fostered in the instructional situation?
(b) To what extent are the different possible
interactions of background knowledge with new
material integrated to yield better construction
(knowledge) of the new material?

- 8 -
- g -
 (3) Does~he uni~ develop cognitive structures (background)
adequate for smooth progression to other (higher) or
more abstract components?' . context. .Any Particular situational manifestation of the phe~omen~

(4) Does the unit provide for extension and innova~ion of student, learning will embody forms characteristi".of th," ;;it\taj:ion
of the subjec~ma~ter by the child from his own itself. The knowledge structures of: the student only app,"ar in inter-
perspective (L e. ,does the unit allow ,the ,chil,dto
go beyond externally defined behavioural objectives action \<i,th.features of the learning milieu. What is learned is not
as a result of his own effort? (p.323) bodies of content or information" or even!;lkilled performances
Another possible model is provided by Miller and l?arlett(1974) diSsociable from the contexts of prp¢luctio111 when \<epeelal~ay the
whose study of University examinations involved an illuminative and context of the manifesj:ation oj" learning~ ~e are left" not \<ith a
somewhat idiographic approach sensitive to the learning milieu. Miller diSCrete learning performance, but \<:ithnothing at all. Knp\<ledge is
and Parlett's work is a direct attempt at assimilating studies of manifest in,actiopand reveale¢! by :it, s?,i'l: is to the.s~ruc~ure of
individuals to the study of a milieu. Its' focus upon the response ac~ion ~hat cpgpitive psychology must turn •.
of individuals and types of individuals to a particular setting is
highly suggestive of lines of development for idiographic methods) This prescription is not a new one for psychology, of course, but
but its concern is less with· the problem of student learning than it is a demanding ope for the evaluation of student learning. Possible
with the institution 'of examinations. sources for a .start on the p>;9blem,? of evaluating student. learni11g
include Piaget's 'clinical· method' and illuminative research and
These studies are exceptional, however. In general, the shift evaluation methodology. Writings on case study are also of "entral
a\<ay from nomothetic approaches in current evaluation theory and significance. In addition,. the \<ork of the Univ"rsityof Illinois.-based
methodology has beento\<ards case-study and illuminative approaches . group at the Committee 011 CU:Ltureand Cognition provides a useful intro-
''1hich are hermeneu~icin character and s0nsitive to milieu, 'but only du"tion to the close-up analysis of student learning (!;lee, for example,
rarely have ~lese been explicitly focussed on student learning, that Easley' s "struc~\lral paradigm in protocol analysis" (~97~c' Witz and
is, only rarelyhave they been idiographic in the 'psycholOgical' Easley ('1972,1976\ and the Witz Good\<inand. Easley Vlorkcited
'5 . -
sense. earlier) •

Idiographic Methods for Curriculum Evaluation
The meth9dology of idiographic evaluation is, to date, fairly
poorly conceived. It lacks ~le \<idespread theoretical ,and methodo-
logical support enjoy"d by the more,conventional nomothetic paradigm
and it has a kind of vagueness or lack of specification \<hich make it
seem unreasonably subjective or sloppy to ,those \<hose allegiance is
to the natural ('precise') sciences model in evaluation. As Parlett
and Hamilton (1972) have argued wi·th respect to illuminative
evaluation, idiographic evaluation is not a "standard methodological
package n •
The critical issues for idiographic evaluation are the theoretical
problem of conceptualising the nature of learning itself (that is, as
a process), and the fundamentally-related methodological problem of
developing 'I:,"chniques for eliciting and, analysing the cognitive
structures e11gaged during the learning process. T"chniques of
observation, a~alysis and interPr.etation,rel"vant for idiographic
evaluation include various typ"s of proq?sss,tudies and the methodol()gy
of. structural analysis •. Relevant types 9f ,proc,,'?s studies in"lude

Idiographic evaluation must begin by attempting to construe the

phenomena of student learning'in terms which are appropriate to the

- 10 - - 11 -
 in which the activities of a single student are
Evaluating Computer Assisted Learning
observer in as much detail as possible throughout a
In the UNCAL evaluation of the National Development programme in
~xperience, ~Jrtrayals of student learning, which attempt
Computer Assisted Learning 6 , it has been possible to tryout the
the 'flavour' of the student's experience through evocative
methods of idiographic evaluation. It is critical to recognise
description; videotape recordings of students' activities; and perhaps,
that in no case are we evaluating CAL as a completely self-contained
the reports of observers in a literary-critical style (see Eisner,1975).
curriculum context: it ahrays 'occurs within a broader milieu. Few,
The methodologyof'structuialanalysis is based on 'clinical interviews'
if any, evaluation studies have come to terms with this embeddedness;
with students and involves micro-analysis of videotape or otherr",cords
indeed, evaluation experience in CAL seems to represent the general
of the interviews to identify underlying cognitive structures engaged
. r- th i ' . ," this volume, trends identified earlier. Either the computer has been treated as
and man~rest",d in e nterv~ew situation (see ehap:!;e; 7" :L.. and the
work of the University of Illinois Committee on Culture and Cognition
a total curriculum context and the broader milieu ignor~d. (by studies

group cited earlier). using nomothetic methods) or the student learnin9aspecthas been
under-emphasised in studies of milieu (hermeneutic studies);
Especially where a machine prOVides a curriCUlum experience, it is
The 'methods of idiographic evaluation are r",latively unexplored
tempting on the one hand to treat CAL arrangernen£s as a\:~tailY
outside Piagetian and neo-Piagetian research, and there is consequently
a need for a cons'derable amount
controlled environment' and study the:iear~ing as' i.f' i t were coritext-
~ 0 f' p 1 ay f u 1ness ' on the part of
free, or,on the other hand, to 'study tile controlled en'V'irollmE.rit
evaluators who would like to try its possibilities. Th:i.S 'playfulness;
itself and thus treat the learning milieu as"ifit."wer'e content';free
involves the temporary suspension of conventional methodological
(i.e. to fail to treat it as a curriculum environment).
prescriptions, though that does not imply that the methods should lack
rigour (see ,March,
' 1972); rather it is' a' p 1 ea f or ~maginative
. work,
deliberate trial of'non-standard techniques and cr1ticalindependent
In American evaluations of computer assisted in~truction (tAl:)"
analysis. It is thus likely to demand a considerable amount of
nomothetic studies have been the norm. Suppes and Morningstar (r969 ,
1972), for example, report an evaluation of the arithmetic drill-and-
tolerance from evaluation sponsors who will be put at a rhetorical
practice programs from Stanford. J aJUison, Suppes andweiis (1974)
disadvantage without the support of conventionally-accepted instruments
and met.'1ods. giv~ an ~verview of a range of nomothetic ev~1.uation oiCAI studies,
and Anastasio (1972) presents a fairly cia§~icai nomo£hetic design
for theEl'S evaluation of the PL.1lrOand TIC~ri CAf'sYstems. The
Finally, it should be stated that idiographic methods cannot , ,

literature of such evaluation studies is sufficiei'itly vast as to

solve the comparative problem. They cannot provide unequivocal
defy brief and comprehensj,ve review.
data about the superiority of one curriculum over another. But
while one major disadvantage of nomothetic methods is that they
One clear example of tile more hermeneutic apprOaCh to the
focus on test performance which is one step removed from the
curriculum experience and from learning itself, idiographic methods
evaluation of a CAI development carl befo1lnd' in smith and P:)hlarid (1974),
though this has not been strict1.y id!Clgraphlcin il1terit(Le. its focus
have the relative advantage of concentrating on the learning process.
By treating a curriculum like an ecological niche which creates and was not primarily student iearnin;).

constrains possibilities for student activity (i.e. as a learning

milieu), idiographic evaluation may thus provide evidence about its
particular problems and potential.

.. 13 -
- 12 -
 Some work in the evaluation of artificial intelligence (A~)
While student. learning has been a central concern in all project
in education has led to more directly idiographic
evaluation efforts, the diversity of approaches .to evaluation has
but these are relatively schematic so far (Howe and
meant that findings are difficult to compile into an overall evaluation
Delamont, 1974, du Bouley, 1976; Howe,1976, O'Shea, 1976).
of student learning via CAL. As befits evaluation in a variety of
development contexts in which each project must respond to the needs
The problem ,for CA~ evaluation studies in particular is one of
of local decision-makers, there is no unified analytic framework ,mder-
fragmentation. Using the language of instructional technology,
pinning all project evaluation efforts. Furthermore, as Professor
they tend to treat learning as an information-acquisition process
Annett's SSRC report Comp~ter Assisted Learning +969/~975 points out"
and the machine as an information-dis;tribution system. The tradition
the use of .a ,"f()rmal". expeldmental-style evaluation of the l'atipl1al
of nomothetic evaluation encourages this fragmentation: only in a
Programme is a "social imposs;ibility" given .the.collcern of the Programme
form of evaluation which concentrates almost exclusively on learner
for achieving rapid development and assimilation, and a practical
(test) outcomes rather than learning processes is it possible to
impossibility given its diversity. For these reasons,. i f not for purely
disregard the major changes in learning milieu \1hich CA~ developments
methodological. ones, nomothetic evalua~iol1 of student, learning via
involve., But CAL is not an instructional means only, different CAL
CAL seems out.of,the question.
developnlents create quite different milieux ~hich in turn, embody
different opportunities for learning. ~t is an essential task for
,Among~e vast numbers of factors which are theOretical I} (if not
evaluation to portray these milieux and learning opportunities for
practically) manipulable and which seem significant in affecting student
those who wish to make judgements about the educational proces;seS
learning through CAL, UNCAL has identified the following: level of
they involve. ~n the lational Development Programme in Computer
course, course obj~9t.t,vesl' .subject-matter, course _.()rganisation, role of
Assisted Learning, we have begun to face some of the problems of
CAL vis-a7vis; written,materials!tutorials!lectures, role. of the computer
maki~g such portrayals.
(simulation, modelling, tutorial, etc.), type of peripherals used
(teletYPe,' VDU) , on":'lin,e or batch use, graphics facilities, access,
The intern~l'evaluations being' carried Gilt by projects sponsored
social and physical arrangements for use (e.g. groupsvs.individual,
by the National Programme contain both nomothetic and idiographic
in teaching room vs. distant location), availability of assistance,
elements. There is no 'approved' doctrine of evaluation for projects,
breakdown rate9 (' down-time'), student characteristics (age, sex,
and in its evaluation consultancy function UNCAL has encouraged
background, motivation, etc.), teacher constraints (aspirations,
projects to . develop evaluation
:
strategies,which
,
suit their own
m,anagement, affect, ,etc.), developer-imposed constraints (recommended
", '

preferences, their own resources and the concerns of local decision-

usage; patterns of control, limitation~ of'access;etc.)l innovatio~s
makers. The result has been a diversity of evaluation strategies
constraints (Hawthorne effect, trial materials, status of trial course,
with a satisfying eclecticism of theore tical stances. A number of
resource allocations, etc.), time frames,,(length of exposure,
project personnel have. produced paperS repoiting evaluatiorllor out-
frequency of exposure, timetqbling demands;, patterns of e~posure, etc.)
lining their evaluation strategies in methodological terms. (For
and computer constraints (queuing, interference, n1nnber of peripherals,
example, Ayscough 1976a, 1976b; Bridges and Laurillard, 1975;
dedic(ited machines VB. czu. servi,ce vs," .commer<;ial slarvicel'. etc.) ..
Foster, Lappin and Wright, 1976, Lappin, 1976; McMahon, Anderscn
Given this. enormously cOlIlplex (and daunting) array of potential variables.,
and Barton, 1976, Murray, et aI, 1976).
it is simply unreasonable to think of CAL as a unitary 'treatment' which

- 14 -
_. 15 -
might be manipulated or compared with 'cortventional teaching' (which 'treatment' is exceedingly large. But this is not what is meant by
varies along many of the same dimensions) in a nomothetic evaluatiOn 'the evaluation of student learning via CAL' and it is clearly not
study. the method.of cho;i.ce for a serious attempt, to evaluate the worthwhile-
ness of ,the, N>tional Progr~e as a curriculum development enterprise.
'But some evaltiators might feel that this complexity is
containable and suggest evaluation studies on CAli which might parallel In tlJ.e UR:AL,eyaluation of student learning via CAL, we are not
research on aptitude-treatment interactions· (MIs). The notiono! confid'mt that ()u:ridiographic anal;yses will be sufficiently
optional CAL arrahgements for types of students who'differf.n ahility, thorough to be authorative. This is to be expected in evaluation,
motivation or learning style has certaihly been an appealing one. but is eSl?eciall;y 59 in, ,the context of the N>tional Programme whose
Recently, however,Cronbach (1975) has cast considerable doubt on the range and diversity of, investments defy neat categorisations. But we
value of such studies (thotighit was he ~Iho in 1957 proposed the do hope,tq aChieve two sorts of outcomes: (a) a general description
development 6f the field ofl~I work by marrying the correlational and of projects in the N>tional Programme in terms of, the conditions of
experimental traditions in educational psychology). On the basiS of, learning, and (b) several examples of more fine-grained idiographic
his review of the nTI literature, Cronbachhas concluded: that the studies (both process studies and structural analyses) in selected
complexities of real-world education cannot be handled within nrI 8
projects.
designs: even thE! results of carefully-controlled nrI studies do not
seem to be replic'able.

Stich a concltisionappears to' support 'the view tha-t the language of

a technology of education may be severely fragmenting; that techno-
logioalanalysis of the educational process seems grossly to'over-
simplify'it. Apparently, things are happening in the educational
process which elude the analytic specifications of the technologist.
But Cronbach's view also supports the trend towards' hermeneutic and
idiographic approaches'and, moreover; it implicitly rejects the notion
7
of hermeneutic methods as simply pre-experimental. This conclusion
i~ encouraging for those interested in attempting henneneuticand
idiographic evaluations of student learning via CAL.

In the context of the ·futional Programme, it is difficult to

conceive of research dnCAL similar to research on ArIs' to build a
reasonablyaccuratepictllre of the efficacy ,of CAL through a series
of such studies must be an impossibly'loilg-termprocess •. Nevertheless,
using CAL as a 'standard stimulus i, it may be possible ih some cases
to carry out research-on aspects of the learning process (as Annett
suggests), though the number of specifiable dimensions of the CAL

- 17 -

- 16 -
 is just one part of a broader curriclllulU contexj:: it is embedded in a
Idio9raphJc evaluation and decision~makin9
curricular milieu. Furthermore, it is just one of a range of options
Unlike research, evaluation has the immediate purpo~eof providing of curriculum provisioll , usually cllosen by a teacher becaus", of its
information for the guidance of decision-makers. 'Nimoth8tic evaluation distinctive contribution to a course. Only rarely will it be justified
has the apparent advantage of prc.;viding dElcisi.on-makers with information in terms of pure efficiency (achieving ap,,;-rticular outcome better than
about the efficacy of instructional treatments by focussing on student some other alternativEl); usually it is expected to contribute to the
attainment as a function of treatments; The criteri6riof success is achievSlment of a different outcome. To put it crudely, i f the marginal
defined interinsof·achievement outcomes /lis if these outcomes were· benefit of CAL is so slight that a comparative experiment is required
'yields', by analogy with agronomic research and development); ·Choice to decide between alternatives, then the cost of developing (or
betweentreatinents is conceptualised as a choice between levels of adapting) and impl~enting the Ci~ materials is unlikely to be worth
achievemertt outcomes ('yields'); the treatments themselves are the effort. The choice to use CAL is normally justified in terms of
conceptualised as 'products' or 'packages' which are,· ill a sense, its distinctive qualities, that is, those not available through other
operational definitions of educational experiences. means. Idiog"aphic evaluation, by "irtue of providing desGr~ptions of
actual learning processes and outco~es, may assist decision-makers in
Idiographic evaluation, by'contrast,serves decision~makers by
developing andevaillating educational claims and justifications.
providing descriptions of learning processes and outcomes. Both
processes and outcomes are assumed to be diverse rather than standard; Through o~r po~trayal of stlldent learning via CAL we in UNCA~ hope
processes are defined by reference to students' actual learning to be abl~ to relate the student experience to our portrayals of the
experiences in a teaching-learning milieu, and outcomes are defined in educational ~lieux of the. projects ~n the National Programme 'and the
terms of students' cognitive (or knowledge) structures. The relation institut~onal. cont?xts of development. We belieye that this is, not
of process to outcome is described in terms of the knowledge structures an unrealisable aspiration. By attending to. context and phenomena
engaged in the learning process. Idiographic evaluation of student together .we are attempting to build a coh~r~nt picture of the Nltional
learning proceeds without prespecified criteria of success, judgements Programme .wllosSl many leyels (national and i~stitutional policy,
about the relative value of alternative educational experiences are educational aspirations, curriculum development, student learning, etc.)
made on the basis of the judges' own educational beliefs. To put it can be seen as a relatively coherent whole; after all, in reality,
another way, the comparison is based not on prespecified. criteria of ~~ese levels are all interpenetrating.
success but upon post hoc educational justification of the educational
experiences provided. 9 In idiographic evaluation, choices between The two questions we are most frequently asked about the Nltional
alternative forms of educational provision are thus represented not as pr?gramme-- nis ,_~ better than ~()~ver).tional methods?': and "is it
choices between treatments on the basis of prespecified critetia but as cost-effective?"..may b.e ~mpossib).e for us to answer in any universal
choices between described examples on the 'basis of their educational and unambiguous SSlnse, the nature,of CAL in each project imposes its
justifications. own forms of activity and is constrained by its own circumstances, But
it would be wrong ,to ,conclude that eValuators can ignore the expectations
Judgements about the value of CAL educational provision tend not to of decision-makers for the kinds of data these questions suggest. If
be about discrete, 'packaged' educational eltperiences. N:lrmally CAL available, such data would proyidea clear justificat~on for past

- 18 - - 19 -
d~velopmental investment~ ~hd dire6t implications for future
investment. Thus, in the contextM the mtiorial progiarinhe, u ~CAL
will be providing tentative generalisation;; about the relative
advantages of CAL within the limits of project experience. These
limited answers may go some way tbwardsthe thetoric ofjustific§.tion
and recommendation. The more intensive idiographic studies will
fi1lout the picture and indicate' the extent tot.,liich generalisation
is warranted.
One of the most trot1blesomeand pervasive problems for evaluation
is that' of findingaltetnativeperspectives from which to develop a
critique of curricular pro'v-isiori, if'these alternative perspectives
are, too far removed from the perspectives of those whom the evaluation
is intended to serve, thecritiquedannot be aS$imiiated by the
audiences of the evaluation reports;: And in aculttire "hlth, since
Diderot's time, has become so saturated with the language of
technology it is difficult to escape the perspectives technology
imposes, especially when the object()f the evaluation is a technology
in or of education. Idiographic evaiuation does riot by itself pr6vicle
the ineans of escape; Btitbj £ocussingon the central educational
issue of the process bfstudent lea.rning and by appealfngto the
ultimate authority of the phenomena ofstud~nt learniiig as they are
manifested in a particular curricular milieu, 'itmayoffer the
evaluator a way of thinking 'about learning outside the rhetoric of
the curriculUIiJ developers and the fragmenting language Sf instructional
technology.
As this paper has attempted tS'show, idiographic'methods may fill
a gap created'by the shift from'natutal science to hermeneutic models'
in evaluation. 'rhroligh thedevelopmeht of ij.1iographic methods for the'
evaluation of$tuderit learning, compatible with case-study and por'trayal
methods at the macro -level, it may be possible to inform decisibn";mak~rs
about th'" problems and possibilities cfcuiriculum innovatioris in
diverse contexts and to inform judgements oft:heir value In the
centrally-importarit donlain of' student learning.
- 20 -
NOTES
1
I am grateful to my U~AL colleagues; Barry MacDonald,
David Jenkins, David Tawney and Rob Walker for their
critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
2
Klaus Witz suggested the exercise.
3
See David Bohm's (1971) paper on 'Fragmentation and
Wholeness' •
4
Habermas (1972, 1974) has posed a third alternative which
suggests a way out of the polarity particularly relevant
for educational evaluators, through "sciences of social
action" • (See KeIl1l11is. 1976).
5
A paper of my own, "The Problem of Attainment: Private
Knmlledge and Public Discourse" (in this volume) presents
some arguments for the methodology of 'structural
analysis' and some examples.
6
Readers interested in the ~tional Development Programme
and the independent educational evaluation should see
Hooper (1975 and 1977),. MacDonald et al. (1975, 1977a,
1977b and in press),
7
As an historical postscript, it is interesting to note
that Cronbach is no stranger to the territory of
'idiographica'. Some readers may recall his (1954)
article "Report on a Psychometric Mission to Clinica"
which poses the incommensurability/irreconcilability
problem referred to by von Wright. A more recent light-
hearted article in the same vein appeared in CEDR
Quarterly (Knifong, 1975),
8
Much of our current work is in this area. On the basis
of informal analyses already completed, we have been able
to develop a typology of student-CAL interactions which
allows us to make inferences about student learning in
the CAL context (see '~he Educational Potential of CAL:
Qualitative Evidence about Student Learning", in this
volume). Through the typology. we may begin to evaluate
the potential of CAL across the range of ~tional
Programme-sponsored projects.
9
A lucid case for the evaluation of teaching without
criteria (but through justification) has been presented
by Weir (1976).
- 21 -
 II
eDUCATIONAL,PARADIGMS FOR CAL *

Abstract: Tnischapter presents. three cm::riculum

paradigms within which CAL is justified in
educational terms. They. are the instructional ,
the revelatory and the conjectural. A possible
fourth paradigm '-- the emancipatory.:.c.. is discussed,
though it only appears in association with the
other paradigms. Some shortfalls in achievement
of the potential of CAL are discusSed in relation
to each of the paradigms.

* This chapter ,is an excerpt from MacPonald, ll. ,

Atkin, R •. , Jenkins, D.R ., and Kemmis, S.
"computer Assisted Learnihg: ;
Its Educatiorlal
Potential"; Ch •. 3 ·in R./ Hooper ,The National
D",yelopment Programme in,Computer Assisted
Learning. . , .
London, Council for Educational Tecnnology, lQ77.

- 2< -
- '23 -
 II

EDlJC!HIO;~AL PI\Ht\DI GrlS FOR Ci\L ..

Abstract: This chapter presentsthrEle curriculum

paradigms within which CAL is justified in
educational terms. They are the instructional"
th,e revelatory and the conjecturaL A possible
fourth paradigm ~- the emancipatory -- is discussed,
though it only appears in association with the
other paradigrms. Some shortfalls in achievement
of the potential of CAL are discussed in relation
to each of the paradigms.

* This <chapter ,is, an excerpt from MacPqnaldiB.,

Atkin, R.,' Jenkins" D.R ., and Kemmis, s.
"Computer Assisted Learni,bg : Its Educatiortal
Potential", Ch.,3in R./HooperiThe National
LJevelopmentprogramme in/Computer Assisted
Lfiarning. " " '
London' Council for Educational Technology, lQ77.

- 2'< -
- '23 -
 Keyc6rlcept: 'Mastery of content.
The National Programme has spawned some thirty five projects and
studies involving the computer in educational and training Curriculum emphasis: Subject matter as the object of
learning.
processes. To understand them adequately, each has to be studied
in its own terms and circumstances. Summarising across their diversity Educational means, Rationalisation ofiristtuctiorl,
especially in terms of sequencing,
is a difficult, even dangerous business, but it is the business of presentation and feedback
reiiiforcement~
this chapter, and we propose to begin it by proposing three paradigms
of education through 'which we may grasp the major ways in which the Role of'the computer: Presentation of content,task
developers of computer assisted learning conceive the curriculum task. prescription, student motivation
through fast feedback.
We have called these paradigms the 'instructional', the 'revelatory',
and the 'conjectural', although the labels themselves may be less AssUmptions; Conventional body of' subject
matter with articulated structure;
helpful than the profiles which they summarise. It should be articulated hierarchy of tasks,
emphasised that few of the projects which we allocate to these behaviouristic learning theory.
paradigms expliCitly call them f'orthin"xPlil,J.nlng anc1justifying Idealisation/Caricature, At best, the computer is seen as
their work; tiley'are our 'inventions', intended to help the reader a patient tUD)r, at worst it is
seen ,as a page turner.
to relate CAL to the generalfielc1 of educational theory arid practice.
IDPCAL Project closest Glasgow mathematics, which has
to the paradigm: the, linear characteristics of
The Instructional Paradigm , traditional programmed learning.
This paradigm is strongly associated with classic drill-and-practice
The Revelatory Paradigm
programs of American computer assisted instruction (CAl), and with
Simulation and some'kind~ of data-handling progr~~s are rooted in
adaptive-tutorial projects in liDPCAL. Much of the work of Glasgow
this paradigm. Within the N),tional Programme, projects such as CUSC,
mathematics, CALCHEM, Leeds statistics, and the Post Office technician
Glasgow medicine, the Engineering Sciences .?roject and the. Rtc
training projects fall within this paradigm. The theory was at one
Greenwich ?roject caIl usef~lly be looked at within this framework.
time derived from Skinner's doctrine of operant conditioning based on
In term" oft1:le underlying educational psychology, theorists such
the reinforcement of successful responses and tIle atomisation of
as Bru~er ,(the spiral curriculum) and perhaps Ausubel (subsumption
complex tasks, moved through an "instructional psychology" phase
theory) would be most supportive. 'r ypically, the view of.. learning
which drew its support from theorists like Gagne and Glaser, and has
<emphasises closing the gap between the. str.ucture of the .st\ldent's
more recently taken up theoretical'trends concerned with knowledge
knowledge andtlle stru9ture of t;hediscipline .he .is trying to
acquisition and langtlil,ge cOlllpreheIlsion '(e:&.Freedle andCarroll).
master. It could be labelled t\l:e 'conceptual.' par~digm because of
In general, tl1e instructionalparadigrn involves the belief that the
the import"nceatta9hed to. the key. i<'l.e.asqf ., established knowledge
knowledge students need to acquire call, be specified in 'language and
fi.elds. We call it .'revel"tory' b"caus'P,the",,: keyidea~ ,are more
learned by the transmission and reception of verbal messages.
or less gradually '~evealed' to the learner.

- ,4 ~ - 25 -
Key concept, Disqovery~ intuition; getting a Key concept, Articulation and. manipulation bf
'feel' for ideas in the field, etc. ideas and hypothesis-testing.

Curriculum emphasis, The student as the subject of education. 'curri.C1l1umemJ?hasis ; Understanding, 'active' knowledge.

Educational, means,
Role of computer:
AssumPtions;
Idealisation/Caricature,
N)PCAL Project closest
to the pariidigm,
Provision of opportunities for
discovery and vicarious experienc00
Simulation or information-handling.
(Hidden) model of significant
concepts and knOWledge structure;
theory of learning by discovery.
At ,best, the computer is seen,as
creating a rich learning environment;
at worst, it makes a 'black box' of
the significant learnings.
CUSC (Computers, in the Undergraduate
Science C urriculwn) which attempts
through simulation to- make complex
ideas accessible to students. Each
~imu1iition package is built around
a mathematical model of a physical
system, as the student manipulates
it, he is expected to develop an
intuitive understanding of the model.
This understanding helps him to
appreciate the theoretical
Educational means,
Role, of computer,
Idealisation/Caricature;
N)PCAL-related Project
closest to the paradigm,
Manipulation of student inputs,
finding metaphors and model building.
Manipulable, space/fie1d/ 'scratch Piid' /
language; for creating or articulating
models, 'programs, plans or conceptual
,structures. ,
Problem-oriented theorybf knowledge"
general cognitive theory.
At best,the computer is seen as a
tool or eduCiitional medi,um (in the,
sense of 'milieu, not 'communications
medium'); at '<erst, as an expensive toy.
Cambridge nAf,~p (Deparonent of Applied
Mathematics and Theoretical Physics)
where the use of the computer as an,
alternative 'to analytic methods
simplifies the process of mathematical
investigati~:"), allowing stud~nts to
construct mo'de1s ofpnysica1 systems
and test the assumptions of the models
by computing. their conseq~ences.
-
. ..

formalisation of the model.

Learning, Labour,a.nd Emancipation .., a fourth paradigm?
The ConJectura.l Paradigm
Although the precise terminology we have used in delineating the
This paradigm may be appropriate for modelling and Artificial
three paradigms may be somewhat idiosyncratic, the style and broad
Intelligence packages and for computer science applications. An
content will be familiar enough to students of education, and will,
assortment of N)PCAL projects including cpr L qt: Surrey university,.
we hope, give a grip 011 the CAL field. 'l'hey may, however, by
the Programme-related work at the Cambridge university Deparc~ent
emphasising those attributes of CAL which it shares with other
of Applied l'.tathematiCs and Theoretical Physics, and the London
educational practices, miss some important issues, and we wish at
Business School Management Decision Making project, fall within it,
this point to explore a perspective on CAL which takes as its starting
although in each case many of the important student experiences
point an aspect of the computer which is held to be its most
take place aI~ay from the computer. Peop1e.whooperate within this
important characteristic in applications outside education, namely its
paradigm tend towards the view that knowledge is created through
p')wer as a labour-saving facility.
experience and evolves as a psychological and social process.
Authoritative theorists of this persuasion are Piaget (adaptation
It is 'possible tbconceptualise the activities of, students (and of
through interaction with the environment), Popper (conjectures and
teachers) as 'labour' and therefore to consider how CAL, as a labour-
refutations), and, within computer learning theory itself, Papert.
saving device, affects their work. To do this it is helpful to

- 26 -
- 27 -
distinguish between authentic labour (valued learning), and.
inauthentic labour (activities which may be instrumental to valued
learning, but are not valued for their own sake). The justification
of some forms of CAL is that it enhances authentic labour, for
others that. it reduces inauthentic labour. Much curriculum reform
and development is of the first kind; making difficult ideas more
accessible, making learning more· 'relevant', or more fUlly engaging
students' own interests. Examples of CAL which attempt to enhance
the authenticity of the learning experience include CUSC simulations
(as in the.Schrl\di1'lger equation package which allows students to
interact with the model and thus to learn its characteristics), the
Glasgow Clinical Decision-Making Project's packages (whio~give
students a 'feel' for the problems of diagnosis and patient manage-
ment normally only achieved in clinical work) and CPTL (where
students learn to write programs to solve physical problems).
The three paradigms we have already outlined are generally compatible
with the. idea of enhancing the authenticity of student labour. The
instructional paradigm does so by leading the student through a body
of subject-matter in a rationally-organised way, the revelatory by
bringing the student to the 'heart' of a problem and helping him to
feel its significance, and the conjectural by allOWing the student to
explore the ramifications of his own ideas.
The computer is peculiarly suited to reducing the amount of inauthentic
student labour, however, and many CAL applications explo~t the
information-handling capacities of the computer to improve ~e,quqlity
of the learning experience by taking the tedium out of .;omekinds of
tanks.
The idea. of using CAL. for this purpose suggests the possibility of a
fourth paradigm, one which is yet unarticulated in detail. It.is by
no means as coherent as the three primary paradigms, perhaps it is a
kind.of inverse image which can appear in association with any of the
others.
- 28 -
'rhis fourth paradigm we have calle.d. emancipatory. Insofar as . it has
any coherence, its key concept ~s the notion of reducing the
inauthenticity of student labour. Its curriculum emphasis and
educational means are derived from the primary paradigm with.which it
is associated - for it never appears in isolation except as an impulse
to curriculum reform. The role. of the computer is calculation, graph-
plotting, tabulation or other information handling. Examples c of thi.S
emancipatory paradigm in CAL include ~apier mathematics (where the
computer is used to carry out otherwise tedious calculations and
where the curriculum reform away from the computer is.of a revelatory
kind, emphasising mathematical concepts rather than techniques),
, the Suffolk ·Local aistory Classroom Project (where the computer
tabulates census data for the pupils and 'fhere the curricular reform
away from the computer is conjectural, emphasising history as
hypothesis-testing and the use of evidence) .. the'Imperial College CAL
work on fluid. flow and heat transfer (a part of the.ESP Project,
where the computer; allows nmnerical solutions to be found for real:
life problems which are analytically-intractable, and. where the
curriculum reform away from the mac~.ine is more revelatory, elaboJ:'ating
the notions of fluid flow and heat. transfer in more complex and
industrially-interesting situations), and some of the CALCHEM work
(where the computer reduces the inauthenticity of the learning situation
by plotting graphs or carrying out calculations for students as a
separate but complementary role to its enh<mcement of the. authenticity
of the learning experience in enhanced tutorial CAI,). The work of the
CALUSG Project in Geography which produces di:Eficult-·to:-generate
quantitative data for classroom use might also be considered emancipatoX'Y,
but is as much a saving of labour for the teacher as for the student.
Whether or not we wish to dignify thi.; emancipatory interest of.
curriculum refonn with the label 'paradigm', there can b", no doubt that
it is a compelling impulse. The ~ info~mation explosi,on,' has emphlisised
the problem £or teachers of how to reduce the compleXity of; subjec~­
matter for students and has posed the companion problem of finding
criteria by which the reduction can be justified. common criteria for
- 29 -
justiifyingthe inclusion of a topic in the curriculum are .its
significance (to teachers or·othersubjeCt matter authorities) .and
the utility of the· information (to students or their prospective
employers) •. The potential of Cl'Uias a labour~saving device ..which
can reduce the amount of time students spend (or ,rather, .waste)
in inauthentic labour·maythus be welcomed by teachers as a way of
easing the complexity problem. As many have argued for the hand
calculator, CAL may divert stUdents from tasks· not valuable in them-
selves (and which:are understood· in principle) to other, more
highly-valued activities.·
These three or four paradigms are essentially ways of thinking about
the'ourrioulum tasks ·faced by the CAl. developers. We have discussed
them in terms of the place of computer-based education in the,wider
environments of teaching and learning, and it is not surprising
therefore that they reflect the aspirations and educational values
held by their developers. But how CAL can·realise these aspirations
is a separate issue, and one which poses major research and· .
evaluation questions.
*:** **
Realisiilg thepotentia.2, A oautionary note
We have consistently emphasiSed the potential of CAL within<the several
paradigms, but we do not Illean to leave the impression that this potential
is readily fulfilled •. Indeed, every project in the Programme has run
into problems, some major, some trivial; some practical,some
theore'tical; some organisational, some human, some technical. It
could be said " and we say it kindly, not to denigrate the work of
project personnel - that every project has found new ways to fail.
Because of 'the risk of singling outparticu1ar projects' work for
attention, we would prefer to treat' shortfalls in achievement by
reference to our paradigms rather than the proj ects! own aims. They
areintenCled onlyro'illustrate the kinds of difficulties which arise
wheneVer curriculum developers attempt to transmute curricular
aspirations into educational practice.
- 30 -
Instruotiona2: In the l'ational Programme, .one can find examples
of 'adaptive~tutorial' CAL which require more adaptation of the student
to the machine pedagogy than of the pedagogy to the learner. Even
where the adaptive-tutorial materials are mUlti-branching, the student
will usually follow a path through the sUbject-matter designed for him
by the developer; even where a range of alternative responses is
catered for by the machine, the materials impose their developers'
questions and their developers'· logic. Unlike advanced artificial
intelligence (AI) applications in education (for example, Carbonell's
SCHOLAR system), adaptive-tutorial CAL is unlikely to allow the student
to pose his own questions· or follow lines of his own interest. And
student:lnterest is important in the justi.fication of irist~uctional CAL:
motivation'based on feedback reiriforcementmay be insufficient in
.. .
"
keeping the student engaged in his interaction with the machine.
Revelatory: In·one project, we have seen examples of packages in
which students have a diiilogue with the machine intended to hEdp them
in planning experiments. The machine asks a variety (~f critical
questions which guide the student towards a choice of methods and
equipI~ent for studying a phenomenon. But the difficulty is that
students wo~<ing on one experiment in the lab are nearly always exposed
to other students who are working on other experiments. Since it is
practically impossible to seal students off from one another, the social
experienc00fthe laboratory will thus tend to preempt the planning
packages, the sttidents·wiil have seen bow to do the experiment before
they arrive at the terminals. They are in a position to "outguess" the
machine as ·it t~<es the~ through the planning process.
There are other kinds of difficulties, too, in 'teaching for 'revelation' _
sometimes what is revealed turns out to be an oversimplified version of
a compiex judgement process p ora:black and white version 6f a grey area
of human judgement. Medical students working on patient management case
studies, fbr example, may be presented with diagnosis or treatment
options (laid out as if there were no problem of construing the patient's
state in terms of options), and have their responses jUdged by reference
to a 'consensus' of expert opinion. At one level, we may speak of the
.- 31 -
process
. as one of revelation -.
revealing
' ,expert clinicians' models
' ,-.,.'
. . ' , '

Freeing the student from one kind of non-valued activity, however,

of practice. At another level, we. may seethe process as one of
- , ~ ", ,

may still leave problems: sometimes the process of using the

subJugation _. what. is :revealed to the student .is an apparent consensus
among clinicians (who, in fact, disagree about all but thernost proper
and improper' courses of'action).
machine is sufficiently difficult that students must expend as much
effort in using the machine to get solutions as they would in
doing the calculations.

Conjectural, Perhaps the biggest ,difficul,ty in. practice within

the conjectural paradigm is th~t of developing students .to the point. General, In addition to these paradigm-related difficulties

where the machine becomes a 'mere't~ol for the pursuit.of other there are more general pitfalls awaiting the unwary CAL developer.

learning. On the one hand, there is. the problem of helping computer~.
We have observed machines that were congenitally or acutely

naive students to use the machine as a •scratch-pad' when the ~deas

unreliable, teachers who found difficulty explaining to students

they are pursuing are themselves ~omplex ang subtle; then, on.the what CAL materials were intended to do, problems of sequencing CAL

other hand, there is the problem of helpillg them, after they.hi'lve materials within the general stream of course experiences, materials

reached this mastery of the machine as a tool, to freeth~mselves from that underestimated the complexity or the subtlety of the ideas

the categories it imposes on the way they think about the problems. In they attempted to convey, the professed ideal of the patient,·~utor

one project, for example, the machine impcsesthe ca~egories of in some CAL rendered as pedantry; packages so subtle that they

•concept' and • el~ment' for purposes of thinking about managers' defied penetration by students without additional guidance, CAL-

perspectives on management problems - once the machine has introduced related curricular innovations so·-'far"';reaching in their'implications

the separation, which it uses to make apP""rent certain kinds of
interrelations between ideas and their objects! it may be. difficult
for students to think otherwise about perspectives.
that they defied implementation except in diluted forms, student-
terminal interface softl~are so' complex as to demand akinc't' of
'translation' of communication with the machine into tl"\e language
in which the subject-matter is usually discussed, and, even in an

EITk1ncipatorg, Using the computer to take the tedium out of emphatically teacher-led Programme, the occasional dominance of
calculations may have paradoxicaf consequences. In some settings, computer technologists over teachers in the design of CAL materials.

students have traditionally regarded "doing the problems" a.s. both.

the experience and the evidence of learning, they .see the calculation As in all curriculum development, CAL developers i.n the Thtional
as being the problem. When a project changes the nature of the Programme are learning by their mistakes. Though these remarks 'may
problem so that it comes, for example, "seeing the significance of a have alerted the reader to some of the ways it is possible to fail,

mathematical model" used in a number of refatively sta,ndardsitua,tionl', many CAL developers in the rational Programme would argue that it
the students may act so as to conserve their traditional ways.of is only by doing, and by making mistakes, that it is possible to
thinking. They may 'subvert I the new approach, treating the computer gain a practical grasp of the problems of CAL development.
as a generator of numerical solutions. and report that they have not
learned anything from thee CAL exercise. Taking inauth,mtic labour out
of the learning process thus does not guarantee that autl"\entic learning
will be enhanced - that, too, must be achieved.

- 32 -

.. ~., . .
COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING;
FORMS OF THOUGHT AND FORMS OF ACTION
Experienced teachers recognise the subtl~ty and complexity of
the learning process. 'I'hey are unlikely to underestimate students'
difficulties in coming to understand a powerful idea or learning
to make wise judgments about how to act in complexreal-l:Lfe
circumstances. Many teachers who have been involved in the
development of CAL materials through the NitionalPrograrnme have
'
seen the computer as a potential ally in the pursuit of these
"difficult" learnings. They are confronted dailY-with the problems
* of helping students to aChieve suctessin the learnings they, as
teachers, value most highly. A new technology like CAL invites
teachers to think that some of their high-level aspirations might
be realised.

Abstract: This chapter considers the problem of what
is to be, le;;lrned .in. Ci'L., Startingfl'om the premise
that CAL developers often use CAL in an attempt to
inculcate "high-level" learnings, 'the chapter examines
tw() broad categori9is .ofeducationi",l goals purslled.
through "special purpose" CAL materials. These are
forms of thought (based on dynamic models of subject-
matter; where what is to be learned is a dynamic
idea) .and forms of action (based on practical
situations demanding wise judgment or prudentaction)~
* Written in October, 1977.
The problem for the evaluator of CAL is thus· doubly difficult~
First, teacher-developers of CAL often use the computer to pursue
the learning goals they value most highly (though, it is true,
some see CAL and CML as means to slough off some of' the more menial
tasks of teaching-- for drill and J?X'a.Ctfce, a.cquisitioll of low-
level content and the like). For the evaluator, dealing \1ith. these
high'-level goals is always difficult even though the high hopes and
wild dreams of innovators are familiar phenomena in curriculum
innovation. But on top of this evaluators face the problem of
identifying successful attainment of teachers' goals in student
performance. Teacher judgments of success, L'1ough often holistic
and r.espectful of students' achievements of mastery, are often
thought to b~ unreliable-- because teachers,like most observers
of the learning process, fina it difficlilt to explicate the criteria
by which success is judged. Judging success on high-level learning
goals is a sUbtle business. So most teachers are unwilling to accept
paper ana pencil achievement tests as adequate indicators of student
achievem~nt (though few would reject them as useful gliidelines when
the tests are purpose-built). For the evaluator it is always
difficult to see what students have learned in ways which respect
the values of the teacher as they are expressed in the rationale of
an educational "package" and as they are realised in its design.

- 34 - - 35 -
 Tpe prqblemof what ,is +ea~ned ,is the root problem of
educational psychology.
.:<" "-',<. :. ,.;. ,'"',, , "'. Early
. ' : :;. attempts
',. " , to, simplify the problem

of the ~at~e of learning--for example, to treat it in terms of

the nature "Cit learllirig , "putting the cart before the horse" as it
• . .: , . . . . . • ': .C.,"_,:.' • . . .' .,' ',' 0-_' " .

"il.sSoCtil.~ions:"
t~ be
"responses"" and the like. -- have actuallj,' plac",d
obstacles in ,the WilY pf the cur~icu1um eVil.luator. If evaluators
tqere':CAI seelned concerned with "low-level" learnings like the

treat the l~~ning putcpmes of educational transactions in terms

acquisitiori6f information and the inCUlcation of simple skills,

of words Of b~haviour (or evenpatter~s of words in discourse or

and seemed by teachers ' lights to undervalue the educational process:

patterns of movel!1ent), it is gU,ite likely that they will under.,

it ~eem~dto mist~~e
crude indicators that som~'
learning had taken
place for the richIless arid sUbtlety of the process of coming to
estimate the coherence and subtlety whiqh make these performances
signifipant. tpth~ teaqher. To the teacher. suchdesCriptions of understand.CAIa.ppeal.edmost: to those Who Wanted t:6 increase the
efficidricy of ~1e 'ldarning'proCess and for whom the question of
learning may seem .supeJ:"~i.cia1 or somehow to miss the point. The
what:Is lea.rnedwa~reiatively unproblematic.
evaluator of CAL innovations must respect teacher definitions of
significance if an evaluation is to exert an influence on CAL
development so that CAL materials can be improved in teachers'
While t:he~eweresome educational technologists on this side
-:.. ' . . ';, .
terms. of the. Atlahtic who were anxious to explore the POSSibilities of
" ' . "

American'-sty1e CAI, others were 'more interested in t.1le computer as

a teol for "educationally-significant" learning
A major task for the evaluator is therefore one of constrUi~g as this was
defined by the taacllers t.l-Jemselves, rather than by technologi.sts or
the educational transactions. wpich take pl~ce through CAL in ways
" educati6rialthgorists. They looked to the more ambitious
which (a) respect the. values of .the developers and potential users
of CAL, (b) acknqwledge the coherence a~d subtlety of the learning
Simulation anclgam:l.ng experiments in Z\meri6an computer assisted
1.earning"111dto .the sometimes eSoteric and often exciting deve10p-
process, arld.(c) make SALas it is experienced by teachers and
ments in artificia1. intelligence (AI) in Britain and the U.S.A. for
learners accessible to the aUdiences of the evaluatipn (e.g.
developeJ:"s,
. l(otential users) • their models. On the Whole. they were uhimpressed by developments
indri1.1-and~practiceOiI.Such potential developers of CAL
' , '

materiais Were less 1.:i.kely to consider creating educati()nal uses

In ~ispaper" we will attempt to make some kinds of .CAL
of the computer which might replace current educational provision
experie~ce accessible'
by.
analysing
. two kinds of learning goals in
;. :', "

by automating teaching, and were more likely to see the role of the
CriL_- the inCUlcation of forms of thought and of forms of
action. c' :. . '.,'
computer in terms of enrichment of current prOVision. CAL vlould be
cons{dered·where:l.t could fit into current prOVision and enhance
q
tt.e tia1.:i.ty of education, evenH this was in limited problem-
The tetionalDevelopment Programme in Cc>mputer Assisted
context';, X'2lther than at the global level whichniight proluise the
(~DPCA~)
.': ,,' : ' .'," . ' , ' , . 0' •

Learning set out to fund innovations. in CAL against a

economies 01 scale envisioned by the early developers of CliI.
background
,'.,
ofscepticisill.about
-' c.>'
the
'
educational
.. : '.,
values of "American"
compU~e:r-assisted instruction (CAI). With the benefit of hindsight"
It is a truism that, in the long term, there will be a place
we might say that CAI attracted this scepticism because it appeared
for hothkinds of de·Jelopments. Some educational appUcations of
to have adopted the educational psychologist's simplifications of
the computer w.i.lli'aulomate" 10w':'le;e1, tedious learning and replace
some kinds' of basic prov,ision. Other applications' will he of a
"special-purpose" kind. fitting into curriculUlli provisiori in areas
- 36 -

- 37 -
 special problems of teaching. and learning are found, And
students to achieve specialised understandings in .content-
areas where a practically-feasible computer-based transaction
between the student and the subject-matter to be learned can be
designed. While the NDPCAL has funded both. kinds of applications,
the emphasis of the Programme would appear to have been on
"specia1"purpose" CAL. This is so partly for historical reasons
the people funded by the NDPCAL were, in general, innovative
teachers wanting to employ CAL for their own (special) purposes
rather than educational technologists with general interests in
the development of.CAl. But it is also partly a matter of considered
choice -- on the one hand, the Programme wanted to avoid the costly
development of basic materials which often turned out to be
educationally uninspired,
. even pedantic (thus providing poor
. , .. ... ..'
eXffiup1es of the pOtential of CAL), and, on the other, it wanted
to avoid the mistakes of "rational planning" (though it. adopted a
kind of rational-planning, managerial model nonetheless) under
which innovations had been developed in vacuo then disseminated to
a market of pOtential users who had not been involved from .the
start in the development process. Xn short, the NDPCAL was
impatient to develop interesting educational applications of the
computer which could be assimilated into institutional provision
on a regular basis and at reasonable cost (Hooper, 1975, p.17).
Given these background considerations, we are now in a
position to say something abput where the "special-purpose" style
of CAL is appropriate -- at least .on the basis of the deve1(jpments
spawned in this country by the ~DPCAL. Our aim is eXigesis, not
prescription this analysis sets out some of the characteristics
of two kinds of "special-purpose" applications of CAL in the
National Programme in terms of the apparent goals of their
developers and users, and in terms of the kinds of learning contexts
they have created. These characteristics emphatically do not
constitute a set of criteria or. specifications for successful
applications of CAL.
- 38 -
Crudely speak!ng, ,we can identify two sorts of .learning contexts
for .which.. C1'.L developers .have produced materials. In terms of
what is to be learned there are, on the one hand, contexts where the
developer has a clear idea of the knowledge he expects the student
to learn through interaction with the materials, anddn the other,
contexts where the ic'lea cannot be 'easily transmitted in language or
symbols and·where: the ·studentlQustbe thrust into a situation to
master it by accumulating practical experience. In'the first kind
of context,'weshall<:say that what is to be learned, is forms of
thought,andim,the second, .forms of action.
.. It ,must be mi;lde clear at the outset that forms of thought and
f",rms of action' are' never. entirely separable - .. they:area1ways
inte.rtwined.~ever.the.1ess,developers make' the' distinction between
these two forms of learning outcomes'in the senses that what is to
be learned 'will be more .or l$sS clearly expressed in the materials
and that·bhe:materia1swi11.be focussed ,at one extreme on the
expression of. an idea or on. the.otheron the experience ofa
situation which demands practical action.
We should also distinguish between these substantive forms
(concerning.vlhat is' to.be learned) and pedagogical forms .,-the
strategies .employed 'by'. CAL developers and 'embodied ·in the design of
a package. :Some CAL materials 'are directly instructional, others
emp1oythe.strategic devioesof1earning by discovery (where the
student works on the materials until the meanings hidden in them
are "revealed"), and yet other materials emp1oy:tha. devices of·
inquiry learning (where the student imposes order on disparate
pieces of data .to reach .his own. unders,tandings .about .the •field) •
The burden ·of this' paper. will be "concerned with. substance' rathar
than pedagogy --.,here CAL is appropriate rather than how.itworks
to "produce"learning; But questions·of·substance.andpedagogyare
also intertwined.-.. the form of interaction: by which a.package· .works
will influence the'form of what is learned from it. Some pedagogical
strategies work batter for learning forms of thought, others work
bette):' . for1e"rning 'forms of 'action.
- 39 -
 Finally, it should be stated that CAL packages o~ both kinds forms, and methods of "nquiry. Through the process the student
are to be,found among the projects in the Nitional Programme, and becomes a,member of the ,?ommunityof inquirers of the discipline
both can be successful given their separate purposes. (see Schwab, 1974).

Forms of thought Forms o~ thought ~re generally realised in,CAL packa~es in

Some CAL developments are inspired. by the, problems of teaching models of dynamical
"
systems.
.. - ' , : "
.. ,,;.
", ,-".,.;.'
When the stUdent masters them, they ",' .. ,

a difficult idea or concept perhaps ,a 'model of a physical system. become dynamics of his min thinking q,bout the, prOblems of the
• ..: " . ", .;'.. : . ',: . ' '. .. " , c."" . _, :.... , . . . . .. ;., ,_,'." . _.',,' . " .'.. ','.: __

Students may learn the idea as, a ~ormal'p:ropdsition (the Bchrodinger discipline, The stud,mt, ,learns ,th" idea by sublllitting his thinking
equation,for example) or set of propositions",(e.g. point group to the forms ,it imposes as .it Were, int"racting>with the model
symmetry op"rations) but have, difficulty in understanding it as a embodied in a package until he is in harmonY with it, until h" can
dynamic whole. Under such conditions, teachers may feel the need predict the consequences ~or the model as a whole o~ manipulations
for, some kind of educational experience,which can ,pull the elements in one of its ,constituent parts. He submits himself ,to the model
of the proposition together for ,the student so that he can "develop as pres"ntedaq~, by acting on it, comes ,to experience it "from
an intuitive grasp" or '''get a feel" for the idea; Quite clik"ly, a within". (It b"comes a tool :r:or thinking ,about cer,tain kinds of
potential ,CAL deVelop"rwill choose one of the "big ideas"o~ a problems, understood in the w'7Y a, user understands a tool:' by
field as an appropriate "target" ~or CAL (e.g; equilibria in "indwelling:',. See Polanyi, 1969),
predator~prey populations in ecology), but it is equally likely that
a package ,will be built around a less portentous concej;>'l: (e.g. Learning from GALpac~ag"s embodyiI)g dynaI(lic models of subj6ct-
escape velocity and satellite motion). matte:r;isaprpces~ 01' ,d:/ff~r"ntiation ofexfifJri,,,nce -- of
dev,-,loping what Peters,".,': (1"1<;6, p.l52) in his definition o~ education
..... '-,
' ...
_."" :,"'.- '_,:.':
, . ; - , . - .,.' .. ' ,',. ",

What is intriguing about these "power~ul ,ideas'" is ,that they calls ,"different;iated f0rIllS o:r:a.,areness.". In ,tIJ." case of learning
embody forms of thought. They are the dynamic models around which po\;,erful,ideas,tllismeans that the student dev"lopro a sensitivity
the problems of a field cluster. They provide frameworks for to the different!'1spec::ts,0:f ~he ,model yet sees, it, as a limited ~,hole

thinking about certain kinds of problems (e.g. variables to be (tha't is, as awhol" mod",l).
considered) .,hich function as dynamical systems ,(e.g. cha.,ge~in

the values of one parameter produce changes in the behaviour of lOrmall)' ,the CAL experience for the student will be one of
the system as a whole). exploring a C0J:lt",xt(a framework) of ideas,th:l;ough exposure to an
idealised model. The m,o,del as presented ,in
.. ':
th,e paqkag<;> may be simpli-
;-;' " ,'," , .... ', '..... .. ".-, '.' .. ...... "

In teaching these powerful, ideas, the teacher ,is hoping to fied for pedag09ica~rElasons7"- it will often suppress the
develop in the student the forms of thought ·characteristJ.c of ,a atypicalitiero and irr"gularitiero
.'- ',- in the, behaviour of the theoretical
" . '," "

discipline. In learning them,the student develops a sense of mode:i,whenit i,s applied,tpexpe:r;im"Ulta:I, or, raal-life data, and it
what the discipline is about (in terms of content), but he ,also may eveJ:l,conceal its lillliting conditions the conditions under
learns to think like a member of the disciplinary communtty (or, which, it ceases,to, adeq\lately describe real data.
perhapS, a school within a discipline); He comes to understand
the discipline in terms of its problem-sources ",.its, subject-'lpatter- So wh~t the student,learns is the "internal" counterpart of
in-fact, its subject'-matter-under-inquiry ,and its ,explanatory theoretical propositions. Such forms of thought will inclu~e forms

- 40 - .. 41 -
of .,ordsbut willal.so have a tt.t.cit elament'("intuitive grasp" richer resonances in thought than mere repetition of phrases.
a sense bfthadynamics of the idea as thesa dynamics are captured
by the behaviour of the model. The point here is that the negative values often associated
with adaptive-tutorial CAL and instructional CAl may be misplaced
!'bwthisseeins to be what the teachar hasin'm:l:I1d in CAL which especially where other
': . . ,
ex~cises or later elaborations on basic
is concerned w:l:thlearhiI1g fornis 6fthoughL' The' 'idea to bE> learned forms of words are expected to build tacit understandings. The
is theoratically-expressibleand iswelF'formed, but to master it importance of these forms of words as bases for forms of thought
the student must learn. to entar it'--'tcJpartiCipate in it ,,,,,- as ii' cannot be denied in education; the negative judgment of some
form of thought. 'The' CAL piickage provides theopportun:l:ty fortha observers on adaptive-tutorial CAL and instructional CAl is usually
student to learn bypartioipci'tion. a comment about the values associated with the learning process
(as other-directed rathar than self-directad) rather than about the
CAL pacl<agasdeSignedtb'developformsofthdllghtofteI1 faJ:l value of tha learnings themselves. Few teachers are content with
into the "simulation" and ,iinodel1ing"categbries. Insimulatfons mere text-learning (learning "parrot-fashion") -- if that were the
based en an. expliCit modelbf(fdr example) a phys:l:cal system _.. limit of the aspirations of the develcpers of these forms of CAL
what 'r awney , 1976, calls "whit", box" simulati'dns'--br in CAL and CAl, then there would,be much to complain of in their
applications where students use the computer to model physical educational values. Happily, (and for the reasons given in the
systems (that is, to create explicit models for themselves), the opening paragraphs of this paper) examples of such limited
emphasis is on eJtploring dynaniical systems andbuild:l:rig taCit educational aspirations among CAL developers in the ~tional

knowledge ("intuitive grasp"/"feel.") about them as forms of thought. Programme are rare.
In such packages, the student learnS by manipul.tit1ngthe model and
pr"dicting i tl'ibehaviour ,and by seeing the{(legreedf correspondence Forms of action
betweenpredictioIt and consequence. (At thepedagogical.leveJ:,this QUite a different set of CAL applications is concerned with the
prediction/observation cycle will often mean'tlratno external development of forms of action. Thesa packages saem to be con-
rewards like feedback on correctness of responses will. be necessary). cernedwith the development of wise judgment and prudent action
rather than the mastery of a well-formulated idea. students using
Before leaving the kind eifCl\!, devo'ted tb the' development of these kinds of CAL are likely to be involved in some professional,
forms Of thought, 'it 1S important to 'mention the:til:ther less technical, or practical course of study, and the purpose of the
glamorous "adaI?tive-t'titorial" form ofCAt-'whichtaperS off into packages is to expose them in a controlled way to the complexities
direct instruCtional CAT. In these applications, the c()Jilputer is of the raal-life situations which will demand their judgment. They
used on a model of recitation the student'islearnirrgforms of are the sorts of learning situations in which Stein's advice to Jim
words. These feiririsofwbrds can aI1clgenerally dd support fonnsof in Conrad's Lord Jim is relevant: "in the destructive element
thought,. but they do so in a. purelypropositional~,dy and may do imlllerse". Through .1Orking on just certain aspects of real or
li ttle to provoke tlledevelopirlent ()f tacit knowl.edge. The dynamics realistic situations -- by stripping away some of the less signifi··
of thought are palely represented in the statics of words, and the cant complexities of real life _.. developers hope to give students
teacher will generaiiy hope that fbrl1lS of words \'iil.J:'trigger off the opportunity of accumulating practical or, more strictly speaking,

- 43 -
- 42 -

quasi ..practical experience, without some of the costs. In the
process, the student may develop some of the sensitivities of the
uprofessionalt>~
Packages concerned with the development of clinical judgment
in medical students (emphasising decision making skills) exemplify
CAL concerned with forms of action. Through working on computerised
case studies of patients, students can try to ~anage the treatment
of a patient and learn (without the'~ost of suffering to a real
patient) some of the sensitivities of the experienced general
practitioner which together constitute "clinical.'judgment".
Such packages contain matrices of da£a or models of systems
which impose structure on the interactions of the student with. the
subj ect:-matter • The fraJIleworks for action elnbod:i.~din the packages
direct the student's attention to certaillfeatures of practi~al
situation~, focussing experience and providing ieedback on the
consequences of actions taken. The student 'learns toi'read"
situations by acting on them and interpreting the consequenses of
action.
By exposing the student to quasi-practical situations, the
CAL develope:.; hopes to develop in the 'student the forms ot' action
characteristic of a profession. Though theoretical ideas .,ill'
undoubtedly be relevant 'to understanding the: situation at hand,
tile student must develop the sensitivities of the practitioner in
order to deal with it adequately, theoretical principles alone
are usually insufficient for wise action. The student develops
these sensitivities almost as key examples. -- as rules of thumb,
heuristics, experimental approaches to problems, and the like.
(Polanyi, 1969, speaks of tile medical student learning the'
"physiognomy of a disease" its characteristic patterns which
may not be expressible in, say, criteria of diagnosis but never-
tileless form recognisable patterns to the experienced diagnostician).
- 44 -
In learning such forms of action, the "student submits himself
to the life-',tasks of the professipnal as these appear in quasi"real
situations 1;ndby imitation or identification with the practitioner
makes.those life-tasks his own. In doing so, he may master some. of
the techniques and the sensitivities which help to build. practical
experience. It might be said that the user of one of these packages
will develop in his own experience dynamic models of wise practice.
Here; as in'CAL concerned with forms of thought, the process
of learning is 1; process of differentiation of experience. In this
case, however, the differentiation develops partly through the
differences in the eX1;mples or situations (cases, contexts) in
which the professional. must work and partly through the development
of sensitivities to the interrelationships between appear1;nce,
circumstance.,' action and consequence in practical life'.
Here,' too, situations are often idealised for the StUdElOt
they may emphasise especially relevant data (even if only by
failing to include irrelevant dat1;) , they may focus attention on
especially salient courseS of action (perhaps by explicitly
offering alternative courses of action or construing decisions in
ways which make some considerations more important than otilers),
or they may present the "ituationsas simple types rather than
co",plexes of competing considerations, irregularities, and the
like. So the student learns by beginning with simple cases, and
develops the s-ensitivities of the practitioner by accumulation of
examples and recombination of patterns of fami."i.iar features.
What the student learns is an llintern,aV~ counterpart of life~
situations witilassociated life-ta3k~. And again he learns by
participation -- by doing.
CAL packages which develop forms of action also often fall
into the "simulation" category, though here the simulations will
often be "black-box" simulatL)ns (in Tawney's, 1976, phrase).
The model underlying the simulation is often hidden from .the
- 45 --
student in a game to be played against other students or against the Another set of hybrids are the "thought:'aotion hybrids" which
U
machine', and there is a sense of iiwinning or illosingfi as, the build. from theoretical. ~ogels to ~odels for.action •. An e~ample of
student sees the consequences· of his actions. (For example, in the such a hybrid is theCALCijSM Project's nuclear~magnetic resonance
" ,,' ...... C',' , : •.•• ~,'<:'.. ". .... <.. , "'.
" " .... ','_'
". "Co "" . _..

medical packages, the simulated patient's vital signs improve or (IMR) package.which build.. from an adaptive·,tutorial seqll<ilnc<il
,-.; :,,(. ','-: .. .... .. .. ',:.. : . '-" .. " ,'_•.•• , •.• '. ," '." .. .... ,:.. "0

deteriorate as a func.tion of action taken). The emphasis is on seeing (including <:,simllla,.tion)wh~ch llel,!?s. ,th,e ,stUdent to, underst.and the .
the patterns by' acting and evalllating the impact of actions taken. physical model .~de~lyi~g }~.spectrogra,ph¥ toward.. ge~eloping the
interpretation ..kill... 9f' theexl?erienc<il,d tI,..er of ..IMR ."p:e9tra.
Finally, just a.. with CAL concerned with developing forms of
thought there is a "le..sglamorous" set of package.. dealing with Conolusion
forms of words, CAL concerned with forms of· action ha.. it.. "less CAL extends the options open to teacher.. by creating structllral
glamorous" extreme~ These are package.. concerned with the develop- ..ituati,?ns in which form~ of tho\lght and£'orm" of <:I9t:j.on can .be
ment of skills at the level of mere operations, often through developed in student..... ThYllgh",lterllative me",nsto <::AL are often
z'epetitive praotice. There has been very' little of this kind of available (especially for teaching forms of wOr9s e.g. text books,
CAL develop<ildunder the auspices of the. National Prbgramme~ programmed ,le",rning devices --; or m"re operation~-;·~,,,.iJt workshop
lievertheless, it i .. true to say that some kinds of skill.. · training devices, calculau)rs), CAL seems to have specialpote~tial for
can fall into thi.. category, and it often attracts negative structuring situatiyns, in whic~ some .moredifficultl,,~rnings can
evaluations from those whose aspirations are'more "professionalised". be ach.ievee'!. The keyto.understa1jdin<J: this,s]?e.ci';'l Pyt';'!.ltial of
Again, these negative evaluations often result from a failure to CAL is the !.lotion of.,,!truotu,rr:CI,intfi':t:aotions -- C~ can create
appreciate t(.enecessity of basic technical ..kills as a foundation opportunitie~ for 1 <ilarners to interact, with compl€lx subject-matters
for more complex oneSi and from' a reaction to the learning process (dynamic mo¢iels of.. ~)Jbj.ect·-matter or of practice) ane'! can control
as otl1er~directedratl1er than self-directed. the form of such interactiqns,So that tl1e learner moves into com-
plexity through a structured.set of possible actionso~ tl1e subject-
Aotioir-thoughtand thought-aotion .hybrids matter. In par1;, .this is. simply "active learning", long advocated
, " . '.i' ",
Having distinguished "ideal types"of CAL concerned with the by developers of. proc;m:unmed ,ins1;ruction. But it goes ~UJ:ther than
development of forms of thoughts and forms of action, Vie should this -- the,lee :j.s a q\lalitative differen9<e}!.l ~!hat .is learned. The
consider some "hybrid" CAL packages which.combine asp<ilcts of both. teacher canbuilddynamic~od"ls,ofs.)Jbject-ma1;1;,,~ or .of practice
Among such hybrids are those like the algorithillic Ilses.ofcomputing into CAL materials and need not content himself with
... -, :.. ,.,",
' ..... .. - .... ;'" static
-" models :,": ,',,- .....• , ,', :- ",.' , .... ,

in physics (in the CPrL Project). which ,allow students to create models of subject-matter (foru:s ofwords)ilSsociatecl wit!:! the Iil't;ereotype of
of physical systems by using. combinc'.:tions of numerical techniques progr~ed ip~;ructio~.
rather than analytic techniques, and those-which perform calculations
for students within mathematical modelling exercises (in the SOCA~ may ext"nd a teacher's qptions by ",lllbodying in its
Min'LAB Project). These might be called "action-thought hybrids" processes of interac:tion s,?me.of tl).edynamics al}d,~he co,?plexities
since they use forms of aotion (techniques) as a basis for building of higher-::Levellearnings, CAL packages. ar" objeot$. fqr ,interaotion,
models or for creating new conceptual understandings expressed in not merely representatio~~ of ~nowledgei tl1"y,may invite student
terms of combinations of operations. action and tl1ougl).t 1;0 pUi~d tacit underst~ding as.well.~s contributing

- 46 - - 47 -
to mastery of theoretical propositions or If mere if procedures.
expressed must be meaningful to the-learner,
even though the richer meanings embodied in
ont.'ie basis of this analysis, weC<\r1 now go S()me way towards
the dynamical system as a whole will be
answering the question "where wiJ:l ElPe'cl:a.l-plli'pose CAL be
appreciated only after the student has worked
appropriate?" The simpleans'Wer is' i ':J:n areas where forni~of
on the package.
thought andfbrms of action can be built into structured irit~r­
These features of structured interactions concerned with the
actions mediated by a computer. LeaVing aside" technological' and
development of forms of, thought arid forms, of ,action do'not constitute
content~specifi2questionswhich deteimine Whether d CAL '
a prescription for where CAL is appropriat~. Given ,that potential
i.-':
curriculum package can be invented for a particular teaching context,
CAL developers often pr::>ject their "high-level" aspirations as
we may set out three general considerations for special-purpose
teachers onto the new technology;hbwever, they may'b~' useful in
CAL development
picking out aspects of structured. interactions relevant to the
(1) It muS't be possible to oeHne a :E():rIll of thought or
design of special-purpose CAL. And they may help the evaluator in
'a form of' action as 11" dyriamical systemwhic:h can
describing what has been learned in student-CAL interactions in
be modelled on a computer, in the :EO:rIll of
ways which'respect 'the' vallies"of the'teacher as eXpressed in the
manipulable dynamic model of an idea or a quasi':'
rationale for a,CJ?Lj?e\ck!;l<:J"e e\.ndr~aii~ediriitsdes:i9fi;
Inferences
pia'C:tiC:al'task.
about whathasbeen'learnEld'can then be groundedindes,:riptions of
(2) The model must be ma.ni]?ulable by thes1:lident so
the learning j?rp~el'ls, t~at :is;d~sQr~pti(¥s ()tS,~~u.c~ured }l1ter-
thatconseql,l€lnCeS of act.ion on'it>lill berelativElly'
!;lctions with the subjecti.matter as, these 'are experienced by the
immediate -- so the stud.ent can actually see the
student.
mbdel a.s it limited whole;Seeinga.mddel "as a
limited wh61e" is a cognitive requirement as much
a.sa question of design. The cognitive
conditiorls for seeing a m()C!"l as a limited whole :..1.

would seem'todemarid that,th", regUlarities of •

the model or the episod"in the quasi-practical
task must be comprehensible within the learner'S'
"periodicitoy;' -- that is, inside the attention-
spa'; within which he can seethe modEl1 or task as
a unitary object of intElraction' (Le. his
interactions >lith it must be recognisably cyclic'''l)'.
(3) The specific contents of the model or task must
becomprellEmSible to the learner -- though he will
not nece~~arilyunderstandthese contehts
inbiit1"e'ly or tacitly. That is, th~learfier must
h~lie some access to what is to be learneCl.· The
language in which the idea or the task is

- 49 -
- 48 -
 In a seminal. paper, "How to construct achievement tests to
measure comprehension", R.C. Anderson (1972}argued that achievement
CHAPTER 4
test items which pu~port to measure students' comprehension of
subject matter ,are often constructe~ in such a way that inferences
aPout whether comp~ehension has been achieved are, strictly sp~aking,

illegitimate. That is, it may be possible to answer such items

THE EDUCATIONAL POTENTIAL OF without giving evidence of comprehension; a correct answer can be
COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING given on the basis of recognition of only surface features of the
content being tested. Anderson goes on to suggest how valid tests
QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE, ABOUT
of comprehension can be constructed, supporting his arg~ent by
STUDENT LEARNING * drawing upon a theory of meaning and research evidence.

When normative claims are being made about studen~ learning,

Abstract: , l'his chapter, presents a,tYl?04,ogy ,00.£ "b>&>nt~',
not just any eVidence will do in eval~ating those claims., It is
CAL inter"ctions, l;>a"ed con theoryand r~search on
learning on the one hand, and on theclaiins of CAL necessary to ask what kind of learn~ng is occurring, if any. Given
developers, on the other. By focussing on ,what happens
the diversity of ~ubject-matters educational levels, curricular
during the l~arning process (interactions), the
typoiogy,may'assist the'evai'uator of CAL materials contexts, and methods of assessment
, in which student learning is
to describe their Gducational potenti,aLThe f;j.ve being sought and claimed in the ~tional Development Programme in
types of interaction discussed are: Type A: recognition;,
Type B: recall; Type C: reconstructive understanding Computer Assisted Learning, it is not feasible to examine all the
or comprehension; Type D: global reconstructive or
tests of student ,Performance by which projects hope to demonstrate
,,
intuitive understanding; and Type E: constructive
understanding. A range of methodological questions the efficacy of CAL., And, as Annett (1976) points out, contro~led
for the user of the typology are raised, and two
experiments which might "prove" the validity of those claims are
applications of its use are included as illustrations.
not possible in a development context. Furthermore, since, the tests
by which teachers assess student attainment are rarely, if ever,
CAL-specific (i.e. they are usually tests of student attainment in a
course <is a whole, not in the CAL component alone), the evidence
they provide about the efficacy of CAL, is e~tremely equiv06al.
* This chapter was prepared as an internal technical
paper in fuvember, 1976. The analysis of the CUSQ
package was made in January 1977. The paper as a
In evaluating student learning via CAL, UNCAL has chosen to
whole was revised and extended for inclusion in this
monograph. follow Anderson's lead in one respect, but to depart from it in
another. lIe have chosen to look critically at the kind of evidence
which might be presented about student learni.ng, especially in
examining inferences about ,the nature of the learning itself. But
we have decided to turn our attention from "final" tests of
attainment to the conditions of learning. This is partly because

- 50 -
- 51 -

such tests will be equivocal about the merits of CAL, and partly
because they will rarely have been constructed to be valid tests
of the particular kind of'learning which the CAL experience
promotes. To get to the heart of the issue, we have therefore
decided to focus our attention on the CAL experience itself, and'
to attempt to formulate a scheme which will allow us to describe
the kind of learning that goes on when the student and the CAL
technology come into contact. In this way, it should be possibie
to provide valid evidence about the educational pbtential of CAL,
whe'ther the tests used to assess' student attainment at the end of
a course are valid or not.
To achieve this, we have developed a typology of student-CAL
interactions. The "types i• themselves are loosely derived on the
one hand from the research literature on learning, and on the
other from the claims made in justification of CAL. By grounding
the theoretical categories of the researcher in the language used
by those who make claims for CAL, it becomes possible to examine
the claims made about learning via CAL in r8lation to the kind of
iearni~gactuaily going on (at 'least to'the extent that the typology
allows us to describe the learning accurately).
Since we cannot look inside the stuclents' heads (Le. for
cognitive structures) to find qualitatively different kinds of
thinking which may provide the basis for a typology of learning,
we must develop it on the basis of what the students do while
that is, at student-CAL inter-
engaged in the learning process
actions (Le. activity structures). (rhe achievement testing approach
looks at what the student does after the CAL experience, when
performance will be contaminated by all>sorts of extraneous factors).
Strictly spe~cing, a set of types developed on this basis tells us
less about the nature of learning outcomes than it does about the
nature of the interaction (activity structures), but even so, the
inferences it allows about the nature of learning (cognitive
structures) will be more reasonable than inferences on the basis of
- 52 -
test performance. This is so because such a typology is focussed
sharply on the learning process ratlterthan on the more remote
e
testing process. We hope that the typol09ywili pr?videthos
concerned about the educational potential'of CAL with reliable
pointers towards the question of ultimate 1nterest~~the nature of
learning sough't'and attained through CAL _~'eventhoughtheultimate
answer is beyond our grasp we cannot ,.ith ally certainty fix 'the
nature of learning itself. To the 'extent that we achieve th1saim,
it will be possible to speak more precisely about the aspirations of
CAL developers in the area of student learning and abOut the evidence
they adduce to support their claims for the efficacy of CAL.
A TYPOLOGY OF STUDENT-CllLINTERACTIONS ,. PRELI[~INARY CONSIDERATIONS
Each of the "types" in our typology 'referS 'to a kind of inter-
action between a student and an iininediate CAL context. \'1hat
distinguishes the' types is the kinds of opportunities they offer'
for learning, different kinds of interactions will create different
opportunities for learning. The typology distinguishes different
"operational definitions" of learning via 'CAL (i-e.different
realisations of the learning process in' different student-CAL inter-
actions) ',1hich may thEm be compared with the "rhetorical definitions"
of CAL developers' claims about student learning.r The typolOgy thus
provides oIle perspective from which claims about student learning via
CAL can be evaluated, it makes explicit what kinds of learning might
be claimed on the basiS of specific 'student interactions with the CAL
technology.
units of analysis
In using the typology , i t sho:J".d beke'pt in mind that 'inter-
action, like cognition, is a continuous process; it is not episodic
(like exchange). When we refer to the learning process, we have in
mind this notion of continuity; most often, when educational
psychologists refer to student attainment, they treat learning as if
it were episodic or discontinuous.
- 53 -
 the control exerted by L~e package over the 'stuuents' forms of
In pra"ti"e, however, for th:=tYP910gy tc) be usable, we must
activity, the better the evidence about learning • Though this
create nuits of analy~is (i,e, ,treat interaction as i,f, it were dis·· . ",. .

difficulty to some extent forces the evaluator of CAL to be more

continuous while keeping in mind the ~Cleal of continuj,ty) so fqrms '
can ,be identified. FC):t;", ,tpe ptjrposes of analysis ot: Cl'U,from a
speculative in characterising the educational p~terit:ial of; the
~Jopen-t~xture\~ style packag-eJ it can b~ overcome by supplementary
psychologi?alpel:'\,pect:ive, it is app:r:opri~te and convenient to define
the pnits in t.e,rms ,oLthe :'irterchange',' bet",een student., and ,machine.
analysis of;;th~r student-materials, student-teacher, or student-
student interactions. In the end, it is only by painsta1<ing
Since ,we "annot know what, gC):=~, ,on ir the student,' s, he<ld when, the
clinical analysis that it is possible to describetlie activi.ty
machine ,has stopped its outptjt', but must ,wait for the student' s
structures of the learning process and to inf;er something of the
"output" (either as inpUt, to the, machine or in ,the form, of llome
nature of the cognitive structures e~g~~~((ana. developed through
other activity), we can use these,truncati()ns in t:he observable
process as limit-points for our units of analysis. The relation
it. The compleXity of these analyses increases with the "open-
texturedness" of the interactions prescribed by the CAL package,
between machine output and student "output" thus forms the basis of
supplementary materials and supporting tutotiai help.
the typology. To put it: crudely ~.t:Ile m"chine output det=ines a
task" while the student "olltPllt" mj"ly be, read as , task...performance.
According to one ideal, we should like to'type every inter...
We can make inferences about, ,the type of; learning ,from wh~t is
change between student and machine and to describe the package
obserVable, i"e. the student 'll task;'pe:r:tormanqe, th()ugh he may
rigorously only by listing the interaction types. But thi,§idf.,a1
well have learned something ~hich, is not revealed.in,his,perf;ormance.
,leads us into a reduction to absurdity.
, '
It treats every interaction
as entirely unique and ends in ~'descri.ption only of the minutiae of
Defining interaction,,! ,in terms of such "interchal1ges" has, the
each student's participation in each CAL experience. That is a
consequenc:e, that, in dit=ferent kinds of CAL "packages" the size of
con,;;equence of treating interaction episodic (implying that
unit will be" markedly different. This is ,a bearable cost,. h0\>iever,
interchanges are discrete units). It leads usb~ck towards thinking
sipce thes~ze of; the interchange will d~pepd,9n the design, of the
,of learning as a state, not a process.
package, and this will,reflectthe aims of; thepa9kag", de"e1oper.
If finely-:tune4, contrC)l.of the studeI\t's activitiesi.s ,appropriate . ,. .
According to the ideal of continuity, however, the evaluator's
, in the developer' s eyes, }:hen, an evaluation based, on small ,units will
ainl is to comment on the process of student-C.~ interaction as a
be more useful, if; the "tasks" prescribed by the develOPer and , " . . . . '
whole -- for each learner across each package (though linking back
built into the package are large ones " then these larger units are
to prior interactions and forward'to applications of the learnings).
more appropriate for the evaluation, even though they will yield a
Th,e ideal of continuity demands that the evaluator ~e'es the flow of
grosser, and ,more approxil\lateaescription of the ,learningr>l:0Qess.
the stream through its length rather than its depth or width at any
point along its course. This, too, is unattainable we want to
The ftjrther consequence of, defining units of analysis in this
~10W how packages work similarly with different students and how the
way is that the description ofi.the learning ,proc:ess will, be more
flm10f learning is destructed or facilitated along the way.
detailed for high:ty interacti"e package;l wherecopstructed resp::m,,<os
are called for, and less deta.i1ed \>i!)ere pack",g,es prescribe large,
Falling between these ideals, the typology attempts to provide
open tasks in a loosely-connected series. Thus, the more fine-grained

- 54 - - 55 ..
labels which can suggest patterns and uniformities which are some- . mathemag.<;nic activities which Rothkopf calls "tes,t-1.ike ovollta"
times sustained ac~oss a wh;le paCk~ge but ~hich Can also give a ,those parts of the teaching-learning process w9~ch actLvely engage
sense of t."e Siversity of kinds of experienceW'{t:hin a p<ick~~e. 1'1 the student and provide evidence about ongoing learning.
rigorous description of learning'fr~mCAL wculdrequireth~~ough
clinical analysis on a student-by-stud~nt and package-by-package Th~ typology might be represent~d as reflecting,qualitatively
basis; developmental evaluators will find such anal~S~s ~elpful, diffetent kinds of mathemagenic activities as these hi'lVe emerged
"
but for cur purposes of considering CAL as a whole, a more rough- from analyses of a large number of packages, Differen't packages
" .. ':-
and-ready gUide' is appropriate. involve different kinds of stude~t-CAL interactions and will thus
be likely to give rise to different forms of learning. On the
In general, the remarks of this paper are tempered by 'the basis of experience so far, we can claim that the typology does
n"::<'<~'-""" . .
pan,-programmatic" perspective of UN::AL. The typology may be more help in characterising the work of project developers, teachers
usefUl for building a sense of the potential of cAiat a more and students, and can claim that it provides a framework by means
global level; fine-grained analyses can be more contextuaiiy':" of which the value and potential of CAL canbe discussed. Host
sensitive and more content-bound. This paper is ;>bout pC;te'riti.al importantly, it does'so by construing the work of developers,
more than achievement. teachers and students ,in terms of the kinds of oppo~tunities

created for learning via CAL. At this stage in,o",:!:" understanding

Diffe1{<;nt kifl;ds of ,JX?tential of the nature and process of learning, such an approach seems
Thetyp~logy offers the possibility tha~ evaluators may both reasonable and, ,usef,ul.
descr:!::>e 'the kinds ofintTra~tions different".' packages provoke, while
at the same time ~upplyin~ a more or less unitary per§pective on Natural p theoretical and symbolic languages and learning
student-CAL interaction in general. It is therefore relevant ''to In many cases; though by no lllean13 in, aLL, the developer of
note that the tYpo;log,y, was c?nstr~cted partly, on the basis of ' a package has a well__formed expression, ofclT1 idea (form of vlOrds)
experience of the diversity of CAL developed in the Nltional' in mind as the object to be attained !>y"the learner. The ,expression
Programme. partly on the claims of developers about'the'important ,of the idea will be, in some language, N>w l",arning based on
dimensions of CAL, and partly on an analysis of types of learning forms of words -- on mastery of the expression of the idea ,7- will
from research and, theoretical literature. On the basis of some differ somewhat from learning based on forms of thought ,(which
tr~a+ applications, it is reasonable to claim that CAL in the take into account broader cognitive "resonances" of forms, of
Nlti0nal programme is very diverse, that the typology does suggest words), and both will differ from learning based on forms of
~ays in w~ich packages anp interactions differ, andlt does create action (appropriate to practical situations) 2.
, g fralllework for beginning ,to talk about the learning processi~'

det,gi1. In developing' a typology of student-CA4 interactions, however,

it is necessary to preserve the distinction ,between kinds of inter-
f.1athemagenicacti vi ties action which resolve themselves more or less completely in forms of
The typology is generally compatible 'With R<:>thkopf's (1966) words (the expression of ideas in language) and those in which the
,analYsis
, ' of:
"mathem",genic"
, ' act'v't'es
~ ~ ~, --, ac t'~v~'t'~es h' h g~ve
w~c ' resolution is only partial -- in which there:i,s an '1l<pectation that
birth to learning. In particular , it refers to ac1ass of
- 57 -
,- 56 ~,

something other (or more) than the form of words is, to be mastered.
The"'~resolution of' ;an 'interaction informs of· words II is Gvident when,
in an interchange between student and'machine, the machine has "tite
last word~!, as it were, and judges the student I s response in terms
of the language content of his input to the machine --,that is,
when it uses explicit criteria, for judging the student based on
correspondence' between what the student "says" and what it "has
b8en told" is the'correct answer.
row the prolllem of identifying types of interaction which
resolve themselves in forms of words turns out to be much more
profound than it appears at first sight it is tantamount to
requiring a definition of the limits of a language. Are we
willing to call any structured pattern of actions used by the
student in responding to the machine a language? Or only verbal
or written utterances? Or what?
We can say that, for our purposes, an interaction is
'/llanguage-basedH whenever student a..'1d machine flcommunicatell through
a shared system of sy"ibols, but we should then distinguish between
operations on the machine by the student (which are always language-
based in titis sense) and content interactions which mayor may net
involve shared sYmbol systems (i.e. tite student can operate on the
content stored by the machine without the machine's having cri'teria
or rules by which it can interpret or judge dIe "correctness" of
the student's actions it merely operates on the contents at the
student's behest).
In attempting to type specific interactions, the evaluator
must be sensitive to questions like "who cqntrols the language by
which content (substantive) interactions are judged?", "does the
machine judge the student's response?", "is the sYmbol system used
in the interaction shared by student and machine, or does the
machine merely operate on contents in its memory store at the
behest of the student?'~.
- 58 -
These questions are significant because inferences about what
is learned will vary depending upon whethe'r the onus is on the student
or the machinet~'~ontrol'theproc~ssof "meaning-making", if the
interaction is Emt:irely resol";ecl in fornis of words then it may be
possible for the student to "subvert" the learnirigptocess (that is,
to avoid learn1ngln'anedllcationa.i1y-signUIcant serise) arid operate
solely at th~1.e~~i off()rms of words, ~or ~xample by "fnechcinitallY"
following ~lgorlthm;'lIk~ t~ose usee{ by the ma6hlne to j uclge his
responses. Or may be possible f()r the stllderit: to appea:r tb have
learned by operating on the CAL materials from short-term memory
but without meaningful processing of the content presented. In such
a case, what is learned by the student may not be aden.era.tive,
mechanism, -- a dynamic cognitive structure -'- he may operate ori the
CAL materials using low'· level logical or syntactical rules which
can be followed wi~~out understanding of the content.
Finally, the question oflangllage is si<jriifi~ant beballsein
typing an interaction, tite evaluatoi'may be inclined teov~res'timate
the "value" of s;;';e student-CAl, ini:.eiactiorisbe!~ause they are
carried outi~ some"high~level'i (tl1eoretic~10';sytrib6libr lah'Juage.
"Low-level" learnings are p~rfectlY possible in'''high-le'vel''
languages (e.g. medical st:uden.tsc;nipiain crille amountbf "fact-
CrillDlUing" they must do to pass examinations, t'hciughthe facts they
are to learn are often· expressed in quite esoteriC th~oretical
languages). The typolS9y we have developed in ·UN:::ALrefersto the
kind of interaction b~t:ween student and machin'e, ricit simply to the
"level" of the language in which it takes place. It attempts to
flush out the degre~ to which the" studerit' s processes of "meaning'·
3'
making" are,enga<)'ed in the learning process.
The implication for the user of this typology i~ relatively
straightforward : interactions may be langtiage~basedih "Variety
of different ki~ds of languages -- natural, titeoretical, sYmbolic
or even graphical. S()~el~ri~U~ges are <"ri6h"';;' thandthers (natural
lan9ua<J:e ls"richer"than symbOliC);, some a:remdferi<;1"rous in
- 59 -
 Though exampie~ of TYl?e ICinteractiong. are in pl:"iricipl<i
proc~se control of what meanings can legitimately be mape from
possiblei~ CAL (e:g.in son:eforms 6fcomputerised progrCll1lIIled
them (theox-etical is mo;-e "controlled" than natural). The evaluator learning) ,we have found no significant examples in the work df
must distinguish the,degJ:'ee to ~hich the language6f the interaction th~ futio'~aiprogramme.
triggers richerr~:;;qnances iO th~ student's thinking and the degree
to,which it controls what is,learnodby the student. (A powerful
theoretical laoguage is both rich a,!d
<'
hig~ly~~ntr~l.ied
' > ' ,:
,:
-- in this
Text: Harold Ordway Ruggwas born iri 1886 in Fitchburg,
good theory is a real cUlt~ral'achie~ement).
11assachus~tts, IiffiwEnglanetmill city. He was one
oftl1~ oducilt.fonaltbeoridtsof his time we now
kno~., as c'o;the" s6:ci~i iecoristrti-~ti6n{~'t'~~'. ;, He was' p
THE, TYPOLOGY
it might be claimed ,the father of ' ';5'oCial'
Type A interactions, Recogni tion
studies" as a school subjectan(1 >las r<isJ?c5nsible
In Type A, interactions, the student is learning from text.
for the development of the first major social
The "correctness" of his response is judged in terms of tI1edirect
studies curriculum which he produced as 'a set of
correspondence between his answer and tbe text as the "perfect"
texthooks in th;:' years 1921··1932. Through these
, ,.',.
version. Inrec~gnition-type interactions, hO>lever, the student is .,,, ..

'textbooks he hoped to bring b~e ideas of America's

required to do, no more than r",cognise textu~l infonnation
'tjpione~i' thi~kersi~ to schoolchildren~
pr",vio~sly presented. Because the student does' not have to produce ',-': ",.,'
Question: Harold Rugg was a "social reconstructionist".
theCOPY'bU~ mo~elY recognise it, such types ~f interactions do not
YES/ID
allow ,11s to infe:r that he comprehends the information. In the jargon,
Ans,qer, YES.
he is merelymCltchingsuperficial features of the informatiol1
presented (~.g, in the st~m of a test item) with informati~h previously
Type B interactions, Recall
presented. The interaction dOeS not require him to engage the In Type B interactions as in Type A, the student is learning
material presented at a "deeper", meaningfUl level, and it doe:;; not
from text and the "correctness''' 6f his response is again judged
req11il::E!i'inact of "meaning-production" by the student.
by correspondence between response and text. In this type of
interaction .. however r the student reconstrticts"a ":tQspons'e. His
On the positive side, it should be noted that Type A inter··
response is reproductive. He is recalling a "copy" of the textual
actions do require some learning , in order to respond corr~6tly and
material originally presented. Type B items do not give evidence
non-randomly (Le. >lithout simply guessing), thest~dentinllstbe
of'comprehe~sionhowever': even though a necessary condition for
able to assimilate ~t least tIle superficial features of the infor-
correct responding is some kind of assiniilation of the 'text, 'the
mation to previously-existing cognitive structu~es.
evidence of research on learning suggests that recall-type responses
can be given without comprehension of the material presented. The
Multiple choice and binary choi'ce (yes/no) items occurring in
superficial aspects of the text can be stored in short··term memory
CP~ in~ex-actions are ?f this type : to answer correctly, the
(up to 30 seconds or even longer),on the basis of cnly superficial
student needs only to identifY>lh~ther or not the info:t'maHon in
encoding. That is, >lords in text can be stored as "print"
ti,e item has been presented preViously.

- 61 -
-·60 -
(ort,~?gf~1?h_tc ,?~cC??,+n,g? 9f a: 7; ~~9jn:(H'i~,t]::"ackU(Dhpn()logical encoding) Example 2 (rypeB) :
5
witl1()u;teI1:~e.ri,nSi t.~.l;1 I'de,eper
il
.~evel of meaningful, P~OCO~Ci..nO_ (.c.Qro-"\n.t~c
Text: The spin Q~' of an electron.. c"'n ~-,.-- two va1 ue s :
sr.j~":le,,~¥rE?S?f int~:r~?tions which' a~pear' to invol~~
'-=-'"
encoqi.nq)?
-- -- .-- - - -
manipul6.t..J _on c,:f th-3 information presented, thus suggesting that
Question: lfuat are the>t'1I0 values of the spin QN?
semantic process.ing is taking place, in fact do not achieve this
Answer: .~" -~.
"deeper fl level -,- in these cases, th• e s t u d ent is mer",ly. being asked
(Comment: Even though the text cannot be. seen by the
to recorcl.)~ne. t.~·l,e t,extual, ~ate:rial <9:ccording to s;.rntactical rules
student when he responds, he can recall
(Le. the.J:ulc:", "ra entirely ind",LYimdent of the suhject-matter). The
the information without appreciat~ng. its
student merely repp::>duces textual material in verbatim or trans·-
significance. SK.)
formed verbatim f;rIl]S .(where the transf~rmations ar~ syntactical or
low-level logical transforma.tions rather than semantic,. Le.
Example 3 tI'ype B}:
meaningful, .transfprmations).
Text and question, The azimuthal QNcan have all
values from ° .to 1Ii-1. .Thus for an electron
Recitatiot:l, .:;;er.te::'.Lce-compl~t.:l(;:m and cloze-t¥pe test items
with N=4, L can have the values ••••. L=?
includea,in CAL,m~t.E;:C:.,-lls eXG1:'(f)i:;:-y verbatiin recall interactions;
Answer: 0, 1, 2, 3
some kinds of sent2!J.Gc.·~co!T.\plet.ic,~.J:' free recall q matching and some
(Colmnent, The question looks as if it involves
kinds of lolt!-level ~G'J:Lcal inislf,nce questions exemplify transformed
comprehension of a principle -- see Type C ---
verbatim inte:r.a.c·.r.;.l.,:)·[.
_ _ _ . . ~.
_ Tn~ "ac'n
... "'""" ,-.<.er-.
,.. C... "", __ " th~
_ '':;; 0~tu(1e
.:.. f.l. t ~s
' mere,1y -
requ~red
but it can. be answered without any consideration
to reproduce a portion of the text presented, either verbatim or in
of the, content. (assuming, of course, that the
superficial transformation. He may go beyond the 1- n f orma t'~on ,
g~ven
student .already knows the symbol L). The
superficially, but there is no evidence of meaningful (semantic)
student's respense can be nothing more than
interaction. the mechanical application.of.the simple
arithmetical operation "If N=4,
T y'~e B" intere.::::tions are to be fonnd among student..·CAL inter-
(0, ••••• , N-l}=(O,1,2,3}".
ac·tio:c.s iE th(~ projects of thG,_ !iational PrO£il;amm{~ though they do not
That is, the student can apply the arithmetical
occur very frequently. 'I'hey alee more pr;"valen.t in instructional
operation unthinkingly and give a correct
CAL (tutorial and ad3ptiv~-tutorial CAL). Because these sectors are
response without recognising the significance
where instructional C.i~L ha.s b?en devel,?p8d in the Nltional Programme ~
of the principle in the· teiKt. SK.)
Type B interactions are found in tuv)rial work in higher education and
in ~~qhniciant~aini~g.
Type C interactions; Reconstructive. understanding or comprehension
Thi.s kind of interaction is by far tAe most .pervasive in the
~\L materials produced u.~der the sponsorship of the National
Programme, ranging from some quite elementary types of comprehension
to some fairly subtle ones. While.these types of interaction are
text-independent (i.e. they do not depend on the surerficial feature,

- 62 -

- 63-
 either by requiring the "stud4nt· to provid~ a reconstrnction" of t'.h~
semantic content of material prev±ous~y ~~Q~nted or by requiring
of the information presented), they are discourse-dependent
him to recQgnise validrecohstructions (par~pl1rases, new examples,
(i.e. the,. correctness of responses can be judged. by reference, to
new instances, new applications). While thelatters~ems more like
the semantic content of the information given). Because they
a Type A or Type B opp~rtuni ty for expressing learning, it is
engage the student ina semantic processing,these interactions
distinguishable from Types A and B' i;'sOfar as it requires semantic
may provide evidence of comprehension. The comprehension in Type
interaction with the content "of the original text rather than
C interaction is essentially reconStructive (the student
superficial.
reconstructs the meaning of material presented, though in other
words or in relation to new information), and the student's
This tY'J?e of interaction is wide-ranging in the CAt m"terials
expression of learning is productive, though the opportunities
produced under the sponsorship of the Nltional Programme. It is
for meaning-production by the student have relatively clear
especially prevalent in instructional CAL; though"revelatory6 CAL
boundaries. ~he boundaries are more or less established by the
may '.also include Type C interactions.
semantic content of the information given; the domain of know- , . . . . ;

ledge which the student enters is ·still that of the original t~xt
ExamPle 4 ~ype C.3·, Understanding of a pr:Lncip1e)7,
plus any additional information proVided by the mac..
'"~ne, e.g.
Question, How many planar nodes are there in the
new examples) ~
wave function of a 7 D electron?
Answer: 2
Three relatively discrete levels of reconstructive unc,,,r- ,.
(Comment: To answer this question, the student must
standing are: C.l comprehension of statements,C.2 comprehension
make a new inference on the b"sis of a
of concepts, and C.3 comprehension of principles>(where principles
simple principle and a statement. He must
are defined as consisting of two or· ·more concepts related in some
apply the principiein thegiveri case a
way). Comprehension of statements is involved when the student is
7 D electron -- to answer the question.
presented with paraphrase questions or transformed paraphrase
He knows from previous learning thati,: the
questions (Where the paraphrase demands that ,there are no substantive
number of planar nodes, and G~at G~e value
words in common but that the meaning should be. the same, at least
of-{ for a D electron is 2. So he can
loosely speaking). (Partial paraphrases may also suffice). Compre-
deduce that a 7 D electron has two planar
hension of concepts is involved when the student must make judge-
nodes" SK ,,) "
ments about paraphrases of concept definitions, must· identify new {jq<i I\\~"\
':,:->;:/
./
instances of a concept or·discriminate instances of the concept from
Type D interactions: Global reconstructive or intuitive understanding
non-instances, or must respond to test items which substitute
"rype D interactions generally involve prolonged activity;
particular terms forsuper.6rdinate terms (9oncepts) •. Compr~hension
control. over the process of interaction rests with the student more
of principles' involves paraphrases of the.statement of a principle,
than the machine.. They create opportunities for students to "get
the selection or supply of a new instance of a principle, application
a.feel" for an idea, to develop a sense of applicability for
qUestions, or the sUbstitution of general for specific terms ,(i.e.
problem-solving or diagnostic strategies, or to leatnsUbtle
the induction of·the prinCiple)~ As the foregoing illlplies, compre-
hension is involved in these sub-classes of Type C interaction

- 65 -

- 64 -
 · . .'.:'.' . .. .
~Clt,t,~:r:n-_r,eco~~~:~:Lon Q~:tl,ls. ~h~".~haSi5 is, on -leFning by
~~eriE;l1,Ci~g -:~ t_~_ de~eiop. .? se~se 'Of, self..-e.wQ.:IC~;mp.~R ~hr.nll~ '~7hich the Example 5 (Type D):

student come,s to understand the eff:acts of his actions in hhe cou"""t: In a (more typical) CliSe,package, studentS
,of a constellation of,p~?blem~ or ideas ~hich are criticai'in a develOP an intuitive understanding of the
discipline or to a practical activity. In this kindc)f intera'ction, SchrSdinger equation by manipulating a
the student is invited to act like a master, not just giveqack the ccplputer-based model of the equation. They
correct forms of words in r"sponse to questions. HedeveioJ?~':Eorms charlgeVi;llues on:aifferent parameters of
of thought and forms of action. To decide whether intuitive under- ,the,model, p~edict the consequences of their
standing halO been achieved, a jUdgment must be made of '~hether the ,actions, and see the effects of their
student is master of the ideas -- and this usually cannot be done manipulations in changes in the visual
by reference to a set of fully explicit criteria.,' Here; mor\" than display. At first,' students come to
in interaction Types A, Band C, understanding must be demonstrated U!lderstand,the,effects of simple.manip-
in acbon; it cannot be expressed simply in words (though the form ulationsal'ld then, by "mUltiplying",
of an argument or its aesthetic qualities may use the medium 'of manipulations, they" come ,to under,stand the
words to make the tacit understandings manifest). behaviour of the moael as, a whole,.

Type D inte~actions are difficult to distinguish from Type C Example 6 (Type D) ;

when symbolic or graphical la,;guages form tllehasisforUlld",rstanding, In the Glasgow Clinical Decision Making
and they are difficult to disting~ish f~omType E when what is "roject, studel'lts learn the diagnostic and
being learned is a methodological or research strategy. treatment strategies of experienced
clinicians by trying alternative courses Of
CAJ;.experiences emphasising Type D interactions involve students action in a realistic case situation. By
in maniP~li;lting models and exploring ideas --through these inter- seeing the consequences of different
actions, students come t~'expo~nd and operationa.lise a discipline. strategies, the, student can develop a sense
Although Type D interactions often require high-level and subtle of the effects ,of different tests and treat-
understandings in a field of knowledge, they are essentially conser- 'ments. Through a number of quasi-:practical
vative from a disciplinary point of view: the student learns to act case exercises, hemay.come to develop a
within the characteristic forms of thought and ': action of the clinician's sense of the appropriateness of
discipline, different courses of action in different
contexts.
Type D student-CAL interactions are wide-spread in the Nitional
Programme. They involv~sUCh activities as discovering principles Type E interactions: Constructive understanding
behind,simulations, "getting a feel" for diagnostic strategies, and Type E interactions are extremely open-ended and involve the
problem-S01;ing using classical techniques. student in "creating" fields of knowhdge. Because the creation
of new knowledge almost always takes place against a context of
old knowledge, Type E interactions are usually inte~twinedwith

- 66 -
- 67 -
 other kinds, especially Type D. In Type E interactions, however,
the student works in-an extremely "open") field of enquiry: he is
not working towards convergent solutions which are, entirely within
the known structure of a discipline; From his own, point of view,
he is pushing back, the boundaries of the fie~,dand going beyond
what is known. He is testing his own hypotheses, developing his
own methodologies and, drawing conclusions based on his, own 'work.
Type E interactions look like genuine research, 'not jUst exercises
on the content ,and methods of the field as it is already,known.
It is both substantive and methodological -- from'the student's
point of view, it involves the construction of new' knoWledge
structures judged in terms, of their internal coherenceinot in
terms of ' their correspondence, to known texts or the performance
of masters. The student learns',both forms of thought and 'forms
of action.
Student-CAL interactions of this type involve some kinds of
modelling by ,the student; the use of computers in, open enquiry
(i.e. as a ,research' tool)i the use of CAL' as a language, medium,
field or 'space' in which new problems can be articulated; and
the like.
Examples of Type E interactions il~ the Nltional' Prograinme
can be found in higher ,education (though, given'the kinds of
projects in higher education, Types C and D' are more cOllllllon t.here) ,
in management education, and in the use of data, bases 'in the
schools sector.
,Example 7 (Type E) :
In the schools sector Local History Classroom Project,
a student. interrogates a database to explicate and
to test hypotheses about the conditions of life of
nineteenth-century agricultural labourers. In part,
his'work conformsto,what is already known'about
nineteenth-century rural industry and the methods
- 68 -
of "prQfes$ional historians (which look ,like Type D
interactions) , but he is writing new history
himself ,notlearning wha't other,s have, discovered.
Example 8 (Type E) ,
In applied mathematics and physics (e.g. in the
CamJ::,ridge Department of Applied Mathematics and
Theoretical Physics or the, University of surrey' s
Co~putational PhY$ics Teaching Laboratory project),
a $tudent creates models fOr physical phenomena
hopingtp develop new ways of understanding them.
His work will be judged not simply by ,its
correspondence with known theoretiCal models, but
mostlythrough,the capacity of the model to
describe (and perhaps explain) the results, of his
'experiments, that is, ,through the, coherence of' his
data and model.
LEARNING f!ETM'HORS AND THE TYPOLOGY
Interactions of Types ,A,B and Care ,assimilable within a
theoreti,cal framework Qf ,learning from textual material, prose
or connected discourse. ,They depend, upon the content:of material
presented, either superficially or semantically (they are, text-
or discourse~dependent). Interactions of these types create
opportunities for students to demonstrate learning in the sense
that they master a text --the text represents the field ,of
knowledge ,for the student, and the correctness of ,the student's
response may be judged by reference to its SUPerficial and/or
semantic content. The learning metaphor for, Type A interactions
is template~matching, for Type B it is recitation, and for Type C
it is paraphrasing (giving back ideas "in your own word$").
In the case of ,interaction$ of.Types Dand' E, more complex
opportunities are provided for the student to demonstrate learning,
and arbitration of whee,er or not learning ha$ occurred will
- 69 -
require a..far.more complex judgement; the correctness or in·-
correctness of the response cannot be decided in terms of a simple
discrepancy betw.een response and· text. Thus, in these tl'O types of
interaction, the student demonstrates learning by much more complex
acts of meaning production than in Types A, Band C.
Interactions of Types OaridE requi're the student either to
reconstruct rather ephemeral structural aspects 'of a f·ield of
knowledge (Type' D)· or to create ·fields of· knowledge· (Type E).
such, they repres"nt the highest'level'understalldings teach"rs
profess to engender in students and ar". the most difficult to pin
down. It is therefore necessary to keep in rriindexactly what the
student· does' in interaction with th" 'CAL mate:dal:.·aim"d at producing
these high-level dearnings, that they are sought, or claimed, by
teachers as·outcomes is' no guarilntee,that.they ilre ilchieved.
the activity of the student will be vague', diffuse or ill-directed,
and his response will be difficult to judge beciluse the outcome
sought is difficult to define. Merely creating types which ilppeilr
to correspond to two different kiridsof hilrd-to-measure aims' is.
insufficient for cilaiming.that CAL.helps·studentstoilchieve.them,
or even creates the possibility ofilchieving them"In short,
eVilluilting ilchievements ilt t:hese levels remilins'il matter of 'judgement
not of measurement; the best this typology can achieve is to offer
some terms in which students' learning activities might be described.
The learning metaphor for Type D interactions is "becoming
a master" (riot mastery in the sense 6f'word-for-word regurgitil.tion
of text). Type D 'interactions are usUally intended to.create forms
of experience' through which the studentcari become aware of· what.
being a master of a field entails.· III this case, the student is
said ~) enter a body of knowledgealld comes to know 'it through
"indwelling"; his "propositional" knowledge of the field is
supported by a substrate ofunspecifiable"tacit" knowledge
(Polanyi, 1969).
- 70 -
The learning metaphor for Type E interactions is more difficult
to describe. It is more like composition in which, having com-
pleted a first speculative creation of a work, the composer polishes
it until its internal forms are more fully embodied and manifested
in the final work; or it is like modern dance, in which the dancer
develops the expression of an idea or feeling in the dance form until
finally he reaches a point from which it is possible to regard the
completed movement as a whole. Ultimately, the metaphor for Type E
As interactions is the process of research itself, as conjecture and
refutation (Popper, 1974) or "perception-communication" (Bahm, 1972).
The following table (Figure 1) gives il schematic outline of
the key features of the different types of student-CAL interactions
mentioned in the typology.
Often
(I l'SERr FIGURE 1 ABOur HERE)
Power relations, Apparent assumptions about authority
It is significant to consider these types of learning in terms
of the power relations they assume between teacher (or machine) and
student. In Types A, Band C, the student is "following orders";
in Type D, individual initiatives are allowed, but the student
remains essentially dep8ndent on the teacher (not the machine) as a
master, and he must conform to the patterns of activity expected
of masters; in Type E, the student is treated as autonomous and
responsible for his own learning (though this ascription may not
extend beyond the CAL exercise -- indeed, i f th e teac her trea ts it
only as an exercise the power relations revert to those of Type D).
Only in the case of Type E interactions may the power relations
between student and teacher be regarded as symmetrical; elsewhere
(justifiably or unjustifiably) they may be regarded as asymmetrical.
Finally, we should note that it is probably in the combination
- 71 -
 'I i '0
'""" "• .w
•
• •• •> "'"
E~"
..~
of Type D and"l'J!1'e E student-CAL interactions that· we·.·might·sxpect to
"> '"" W
" •" • '0
•
.
•• 0 .~
o~'O
i W ''''; 0 ttl "• I"""
" .~ '0
~'g~-::
"""~.j.J •
w
I :> .j,J ''''; Ul
•" "'~
'•" "g tl"
"" •"" "• iihd evidence of .the highest' levels of .academic achievement as t.'J.is is
.• ·• " • .
. Vl <d I, '..-l IJ +l <d
~>.~,:{3 . ...
I
1.j..I=:J-<"l".Q ~ ~

"""
•" .'" "'"•0 "~ " " •" • • !i; " •
"" " ••"w
.~ , U l-I til ~

" '" "0

0 +-'
'0 W ::;:I ,.-I
~
"'n
::;:I .j.J
'0, 1Il.
o
0....-1
.,..j '.-1
~~
ft,§'
.~ .0
"c:w •"
't!.
conventionally defined, •... wherethestuderitachieves high' ·levels ,of.
;.:l't:' o.j,J

'"" ,"'"" •" " "0. .?;"

.~

"0."
0
~'O

~,'l
I,)
'"" ""
0 0 "w m
S ~ o "
UD
U
.-
.~
.' . _.- . " global reconstructi"eunde'rstandirig' (mastery of'a discipline) and high
lEi"Eil;; ofcdnstttlc'tive understanding, he will be conventionally
reg'ilrdedas equfpped'both tdresearch andtdcritique.. fields of know-
ledge. He isth.us ,(not:i.onilllyliila positidn>torespeCt,td break,
cuidt:6 set boundade~ofdisdip'1iilaryknowledge andthustdrelate new
kno('li~dge toestablisl1ed field.sbf knowledge.

INFERENCES ABOUT LEARNING. METHOlXJLOGY

ConventiorialeduCat:J.on Covers' a wider spectrum of . forms of
irit:eir~ction thana-re represented in this typology (the typology does
riot deal \'/ith. the learning of' pure motor skills, for. example). .But
the constructidn of the typology has been governed by the diversity
of actual CAL applications 'co be found in the National Programme,
and the kinds of features which s",em important in understanding.
c'l;;d.lnsmaCie forthem;'The typology is an attempt at.an.,analytic
scheme whiCh "Can . erhbrace thE!. diversity of', applications.' yet r",duce
! .
it t:6 a 1JlOre manageable leveL The typOlogy is thus aniattempt to
tame a real arid perplexing diversity' of learn.ing·processes eng"'!ldered
by' cAL '--the 'type'sareorittle enough, and ·theirvalue .is only in
""
I•
i<
their particulaFresdlut.l.6ncif thecdmplexity. Through it· we ,may
come to,fuderstarid. something'Ofthevalties'of CAli developers. and of
the 'learn.ing 'proCess; ; P'erhaps: the ma.jorlesson we" have,.learn",li from
the typology fs-t:hal:.·cl1e j?rojElcts in·the National Programme cover a
wide ra.rige ofle'arning contexts, and that most CAL applications
w';uldbe desctibecl asasPitin~j'to create "high-'level'!.'learnings by
l conventional tyPologies.
I
I

,I One potential advantage of CALis itSclosermbnitoring.of the

I ...
learning process (interactions). This is one. aspect of the veneral
I~
! 1:l ~ . issue of 'indivi'duali'sation;' In a sense, the machine. creates the
2J •
g
~
i:J w
I p(>ssibili\:!t of a. more intensive engagement of the student's

- 72 -

- 73';'
thought-in:.,action, and. call.ma[\age.the type of interaction Illore
.sensd.tivelYi,at.least ,in. some !~pplication,s.
of learning sought via qu:.,. are not quali ta:ti"elydifferent
sought in conventi.o.nal, te;wh,ing, theeng/l.geme.Il:Cqf the, stlldellt, i,n
the learning. process Illay J:>e Illore f:ocusS"d in,
This advantag" may have a.negaj;;ive.aspect, how"ver
via CAL mightbethOu9ht.tobe I1lOree;l=:i:ciellt, itispossible>t.hat
students will notbeal:>le, to maintain. the.
CAL, and it is alsopossihl e that the ratiq!lal,isation oJ; :i.ea,rlling via
CAL (with the implied reduction in redundancy) may have negative
motivational consequences.
In order to 'test claims. about, the, potential "of
.•','.' '._ '. '",.<._,.:
. J
CAL,
'. .'
however, we
:.. .::..:.. -.:<
_" ..,.',.'
must find ways to .ehar;ac:t.erise the" l"ar;ning proc""r,l. The tYP9;L0GY
'pro11idespart of thepasis for Sllcha t"st, but ,'luestions of m"thod-
ology.remain; We ,now ·tl,Jrn to some .ofthese qu"stions • .
conventional, 'methodology
\, :.U' we are to ,be convinced that, a ,student,paslearned;thr<:>ugh
an educational ,experience. we. arelik.ely ,t,o ",ant ,evidenc." that he
can' do something he cO\lld not do beforehand.. This simple,. dict\lID
'has led to a proliferation of pre-test/post-testd"si9lls j,n
, educational' 'research :and evaluatio.n, which do little to acco,unt for
the type ofdearning .the stUdent. has <'lchiev",danCi"tell us little
•about whether the. stude.nthas. achiev"d .<'l ,I).",w level,?; comprehension
or understanding, as, ,a ,result o;\:tlle ";t",arninge,,pe.rienqe,
crudely.,whileit ,ispossi,ble t()d"!,,;ig:n apr,,7t,est/Post-test
evaluation,~which will. appqr"ntlY.quqntify
attributable toa~educationa,l.in~eraction,such
fail to specify these "gains" qualitatively. ,That is, it may fail
to provide a description of the nature of what has been learned and
thus overestimate or l.Il;lderestilllate its value.
The typology is intendedtQ pr0clucj",answersana,lfg?uS to those
of a pre-test/post..testevaluatioll..but, by quite a differ"I,lJ:: method.
- 74 ...,
It emphasises the nature of the learning experience (and the nature
:rh\ls, ,while :tile ,kblds of evidence for learning) rather than the quantified achievement of
f~om those students as measured by'tests of unknown validityand.reliability.
And there will often be a mismatC:h.between the type of interaction
student~GALinter;actions. i,,"01"ed in'the learning process and the type:ofitem used in the
tqough ;learning test (an aspect of validity). The typology seeks, evidence about the
cognition'of students in interaction with the: materials (i~e. their
intEln,,~tyof inter;,action in thought-in~action) rather than "raw" 'achievement as measured by.. tests.
Description
It is possible to describe the learning process set in train
by a'CAL pacJ<agein the 'case of any individual studentbycharac..
'.,"'):. ,'_ terising ea.ch "interchange" bet>1een student and CAL, materials"
tutors, other students' and so on. T his close description can form
the basis for intensive analysis ,of learning; '.'; such an idiographic
approach may be contrasted with the' nomothetic approaches of
conv€Hition1l.1 pre-'test/post-test deSi9nS e.
In the ,end, however, judgment about. the, educational potential
•of CAL will not be made by, reference·to descriptions of particular
interaction sequences in particular students -- somehow, potential
lUUSt. be described" in more general·terms. The'problem, therefore,
is how to."average" the interaction-types -- how to reduce the close
desc:riptionto a judgment about CAL in general •
Put At one level, the problem is bypassed by discussing. the potential
of CAL -- for example, by exploring the critical experiences (examples
·le.a~~ing gains' of special success or failure) which can provide models for future
an evaluation may developers. 'ItmaY'bepossible to say what can be achieved thro\lgh
CAL, but each new CAL development must find ways of realising its.
aspirations 'in the design of a learning situatipn.--a domain for
student-CAL interactions. Furthermore, learning is an individual
process; each CAL package must be integrated into a'curriculum on
the one hand, and adapted to 'the prior experience of students on the
other. Discussions about the 'potential of CAL must always tqke into
- 75 -,
account, the context-embeddedne,,:soff learning",'
:Atanother level, the problem of reaching a judgment abcutthe
value of 'CAL is eased by speaking, ,from ",xampl"'s-., if.thE\ eval.uator
conSiders CAL pack.agE\sand th", learnings they.Jpromote 1;oget./:leri"then
it is unlikely that,'discu",sions. of the value of CAL l\1il.lreify
successes in promoting learning ,as SUCCeS$es of CAL in general (a.s
if the success was somehow in :the.,.tecMology). . Again, the' evaluator
must realise the contex~-embeddedness of learning, and of potential.
The value off, the typology asa means of descril;>ing tl1e kinds of
student-CAL interactions weha..;,e., observed in .the. l'ational· Progr~e
is that it allows 'the, reader to consider' the learning PrOCess,
(interactions) < in a.language .which incorporates"differe"t kinds of
educational considerations (the tYPes" ch<J,racterisations of· which,
include educationally-signiHcant· feat.ures, like I\1hat·is . tp be, learned,
medium, extent of student par,ticipation, in,,"mea!1ing.,J!l<:kipg~'and.so
By so doing, it predisposes description of interaction sequences
towards educational ,judgments."'- in the ,ligh:!: of the .' aspirations of
developers,it is· po"sible ,to..describe,releval1t.intera.ctions, ,as. weH
as their', duration and frequency ,and. thus to, rea.cl1,a judgment, about
whether 'the' package. seems to be. doing what developers. intend,pr some-
thing else. . (It is significant that the typology al"psuggesto;; a
description of the "what else" --on aconventicnal test, it is oJ;l:),Y
possible to describe achievement vs. non-achievement, though non-
achievement remains, undescribed),
It'should also be added that the typology cap dono more L~an
'characterise student-CAL. interactions in, ..i ts own particular w<J,YJ
full description of an interactionseque!1ce will need far more than
theskeletal'description the.typology can provide, Naither.cim the
typology confer "success" ; what, countS as suc"ess i,nc()hsidering a
package will'dspend 'on itspar.ticulqr. aims and. its. ach,ievements,
.Suffice it to say '. that Type C interactioni;l (for eXi>lllple). eanbe just
as valuable as Type E interactionsin,q·given .context, (In the case
.. 76 ..
of the tutorial-"tyle CUSC package which provided example" 2, 3 and
4, the developer felt that students had found diffficulty learning
term symbols,andthe package was a,response tbthat need -- that the
package is characterised by cOillprehenslon"'type interactions rather
than, say, intuitive ones; is thus neither surprising nor education-
ally unacceptable, The package seems' appropriate for its aims) •
Interpretation
'Differerit types of interactiorismake lea.rning manifest in
different ways. What can beiri'ferredabout learning from the
(manifest) student~CALinterac'tionthus depends on the interpretation
of the eviderice; piaget (1929) faced the problem of interpretation
in his discuss:ion dfcliriical interviews (whose 'purpose ,was to elicit
the corivictions of children of different ages about 'the nature of
the \10rldF. The classes of responses to interview' questions provide
a useful ·scheme for'cbnsideringinfe'rencesabout, learning on the
on). basis of studerit~CAL interactions. The' classes of respon'se he
identifies are,
1)' the answeratrandolll'
the student merely guesses at an answer without a
serious attempt to' adapt to the item1"
2l'romanc::ing ,
the student respOnds,without reflection by inventing
a:ri answer which he dbesnotreally believe, orin
which he believes merely by force of saying it,
3) the suggested conviction,
the student makes a serious attempt to reply but
either the question is suggestive or the student
a .is·concerned with satisfying the examiner without
thinking for himself;
4) thii liberated conviction,
'the'student replies after reflection, drawing,'
upon the stOres ofhisown'minc1 -~,the response
maybe regarded as' an ,original product of,.the
student's reasoning'about the item, neither
suggested nor spontaneous; and
- 77 -
 5) the ,spontaneo~s conviction, observer (and the reader) to make ptleast two quite untenable
the student responds without reflection because assumptions: 'that the interactions within the CAL experience are of
he'does not need to reflect, the answer is equal importance, and that the types thems~lves are pn an interval
al,r.eady formulated or capable qf peing formu~, scale.
lateq, In this case, the problem is not new
to the student and the response is the result Rather, we believe that using t~e ,typolqgY is a m~tter of
of previous original reflection. judgment. In the light of what the developers of GAL materials say
about the materials, it will be possible to look more closely at one
While there are difficulties in distinguishing between these interaction or another to evaluate claims for the materials rather
classes of responses, they suggest lines along ",hichstudent-CAL than the materials alone (i.e. the developer's claims will be used
interactions differ. While the first two classes are of little to bias the observer to scrutinise some aspects of the CAL
educational interest, the latter three a~e educationally significant. experience more closely). Furthermore, for most evaluation purposes,
In the, case of. each type, of interaction represented in the it will notb,e possible to use; the Piagetianclasses of responses
typology, the reader is invited to. consider whether CAT. experiences with the delicacy of analysisand,interpr"tation they demand. We
predispose ,the, student's response towa,rds one qr other of the Jive would expect the typology to be used as a rough and ready guide
classes: if the response is atra,ndom or :r9mancing, we should be rather than precisely and rigorously. l'evertheless, in analysing
inclined to say that th" materials fail to, "ngage the student's astrearo of student-CAL interactions generated ',in a CAL experience
serious attention; if the response is suggested, wewquld say that it should be possibLe to, ,locate, a student's ,response more or,less
the CAL "task prescription" (rather than the ,student) ,is producing accurately in.a matrix ,of the interaction types by the classes of
"evidence" of learning; if the response islibe:rated, we would say responses o·

that the student had learned through the item; and, if the response
4#J
is spontaneous, we would say that the student was demonstrating
learning, but not learning engendered by the interaction (i.e. the TWO TRIAL APPLICATIONS OF THETYPOWGY
student already knew 'the material involved in ,the ;int"raction).
1. A CALCHEM NMR PACKAGE
We have not laid down strict criteria fo", each, type of inter-' A CAJ,CBEM package on the interpretation of ~MR (NUclear
action within the typology and s~tabout the process of training Magnetic Resonance) spectra was analysed using the typology. Most
observers which would give high ,coefficients of inter··rater of the interactions appeared to be of Type C: reconstructive under-
reliability. We do not expect it to be. used mechanically in the standing or comprehension. Within this group many of the individual
analysis of CAL materials. As has already been ~uggested, an over- interactions involved comprehension of statements, and some involved
strict use of the typology on an interaction-by-interaction;basis comprehension of concepts or principles.
would fragment our representations of the learning process, and lead
us to think of learning as episodic (a sequence of states) rather
than as continuous (a process). Furthermore, any attempt to give
a "mean value" on the typology to a q\.L "xpe",ience would invite the

- 78 - - 79 -
Example of a Type C.l interaction (comprehension of statements)9,
. ., . : .'... i~' c . _ _ _ ",'
11achine, USHG THIS NJI'Jn' IO N Lfor number of protons, Exam1?leo:fthe C':B'-Cp:r:oinp£ing stra'63gy: .
mult1p iibHy. arid merin peak position in deltal .. IOlachin,,' ['''TN; THiSIDl'Jn'ION ':I'ylPE I N THE RELEVA 1\11'
T Y'PE I NT HE RELEVAlT I N;'oRMP1I.'iONFOR INFORMATION FOR SPECTRUM WMBER 2-A
SPEcrRUl1 WMBER 3¢-A. PLEASE NJI'E:
PLEASE NJI' E : o liLY Type INTHE INFORMATION FOR 0 ~E
bN:.Y' TYPEINTIiE IWbRMATIbN FORO~E SIGNlUi:l\TATIME
SIGNlL In'ATIME • Student: 6H·,· S',S{6
Student: 3H, T, 1. 2¢ f-- Machinei'THERES01'AN:E':Jn' S'.6DE:t:rAISNJI' DUE'
. .
2H,. QUARrEr p 2.57 f- T06PRCII'OIiS.'
SH, S,· 7.¢9 (- THE AREA OF EVERY PEAKIlAS BEENIN.'EGMrED SO
THJn' YOU CAN MEASURE HOW MANY PRDrOm ARE
Example of a Type C.2 interaction (comprehension of concepts),
RESPO l<3IBLE:FOReACHSIG1'AL.SIMPLY ESTI!1ATE
Machine, WHJn' ARRA J;GE11E II!' OFPRorO m IS RESPO mIBLE THE 'AREA OF EACH PEAK; WORK our THE RELATIVE
FOR THE SIGN\L In'1.2DEIIl'A? AREAfS) OF EACH PEAKAIDDI1lIDEIII!'6 THE WMl3ER<
Student: CH3f---': OF PRDrO:m IN'l'HEMOLECUIARFORML1Lll..
PLEASE TRY AGAI N"
The prompting strategy used,iri,the package· could be represented Student: 6H, S,··'2.¢1 '?---
as a C-B·-C strategy. That is,. if the student did not respond
adequately to an item within the package ·callingfor·comprehensicn of Characterising the !'MR package as mostly Type C interaction,
a statement, he would be asked to recall some relevant fact (and however, is accurate only if the package is considered as a one-shot
failing that would be given it perhaps evidence of Type A: exercise for a sbidentnewtclthe area. The package is designed
recognition), then given another opportunity to use this information to guide "tudents·thr6ughseveral interpretations .. Once familiar
in another try at the comprehension item. with the lower-levelcolllprehension aspects of the'. exercise , ·the
studeritcanby-pass·part of the'packageand':l.nput thedatawhlch
provides,the. hasis.fbririterpretation, of, spectrum· (.I.e'. he can··
mOlfe from cOlllprehension of details to 'an intermediate stage in
which these· data wilL be rapidly ,recognised-- ·ifthe student has
reached the stage. by which he is capable of making these relatively
trivial .. identifications, then persevering with the close control
of the package will be of little advantage). At this stage, the
student. inovesfrom Type C .formsof interaction to Type D: . global
reconstructive understanding; He moves from comprehension of the
information contairied.·in' the .spectrum (which becollles ·tacit). towards
developing an immediate, intuitive interpr"tation of spectra. With

- 80 - practice, he will deve~op the ability to interpret spectra like an

- 81 -
expert: rapidly and intuitiy",lj(, and.witpout ;the. painsta)dng., been covered, an instruction "orc" (over to computer) directs the
rule-bound, rational-reconst,rjlctivese'luenc", of judgmentsq,eP,landed student to answer a question or qUGstions on the tf s ub-topic ll
of the beginner. presented. The student thus moves from text to machine and back,
so that the off-line material is like a frame of text in a program
For the mIl. SPectl;ap",ck",g"" "Ie cannot. give a specific example while the on-line material provides for active responding and the
of a Type D interaction -- global reconstructive or intuitive under- prOVision of feedback. Prompts help the student to correct
standing in this case is not achieved in.a single unit of. stlldent- e.rrors.
CAL interactiol). bu;tby rep",a;tedexposur",to,;the ;$equenceof.Type C
interactions. Evidehce of global recol).stl1jlctiveor intuitive under- The first section of the package (simple quantum numbers) and
standing.isj;h,,,,refore eqUivocal. the accompanying test (to be taken once or until the section is
mastered) provided the basis for this analysis.
Thus the package migl1t besj: bede.sc)::l;J:).esi ,as, a "Type C-D
package"to indicat",that.as;the student,prOgJ:;esses the form of his The main work of this part of the ''rERMSYM'' package takes place
interactionwithit·will.change. (It might i'\:).sobe noted that while throjlgh Type B (recall) and C (comprehension) interactions.
the package issupe~ficia:).ly of an adaptive-tutorial type, it
contains a "simulation" aspect: it can p;<:esent.the student with The following pages explicate the analysis of the complete unit
"
inferences from his responses, and thus create cognitive as presented to this student (SK). For each explicit interaction,
disequilibrium. the Type has been given. Type C is broken down into C.I comprehension
of statements, C.2 comprehensiOi). of concepts (based on discrimination
and identification of concepts), and C.3 comprehension of principles
2. II CUSCPjJ.CIqleJF:, TERM SYMBOLS (ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY) (based on application of principles). Purely operational or
This package is. a~esponse to a teacher.;sCOl1Cerl1 clbout procedural interactions "ith the machil1e are marked "n.a." (not
students.' maste~y; of the. terminology ",sspc;iateCi.with his topic applicable). Asterisks indicate areas of the machine-generated text
term symbols,.,., in.aj:omic spectroscopy. Althougl1quite,dif:f;erent which present information but with ~lhich the student cJ.oes no;!: interact
from. most. other c:USc:p",ckages which are , dynamic,' manipulative al1cJ. explicitly (all the oH-line textual material is of this charac;t:er).
graphical,.the Project agreed to produce the.pack",gebecause it·
was an attempt to Cieal "ith,a >;eal teaching problem via CAL • The
''rERMSYW' package might welL be described. ",S computerised· programmed
learning.'

T,he student works through' a.. guide . sheet which presents'

instructions about.how to use the, machine,; information on the topic
to.be. learned, diagrams :f;or interpretation, definitions of •.terms,
. etc •. At· appropriate· points. in the text, -- when a "sub-topic" has.

- 83 -
- 82 -
 ON-LI ~E MilrERIALS Inter- Type COI'"."lll'I'S
action
. nllJll1<@..r.
ACCOUl'I'-ID: XXXX
01/17/77 14: 27 SIG N-O ~" 19
THIS IS BASIC REV 3.6 OPERm'Im U~DER MRDQS 4.2·

RU Iii "I'ERMSYM"

******'PLEASE CLEAR THE SCREE Iii *******

::: ,:: :THEN PRESS REI'ORN::: :::,

****rERM SYMBOLS ****
***m'OMIC SPECI'ROSCOPY ***
***I l'I'RODUCI' IO I' ***

I
YOU ~ED THE ACCOMPAWIm MAWScRIPI' BEFORE
ATTEMPI' I m TO RU NTHIS PROGRAM
...ro
THE COMPUI'ER IS U~ABLE TO USE LOWER.CASE LErTERS':
SOME OF THE QUAl'I'ml WMBERS NAY LOOK SI'RAN;EllI' . FIRSI' ..
*

THE PROGRAM IS DIVIDED I l'I'0 SUB PROG~

1. SIMPLE QUA l'I'UM NUMBERS (Q N)
2. TESI' 1 •
3. RESUnr A l'I' SPIN & AZ IMUI' ilALQ
4. TESI' 2
5. THE CmlPLErE TERM SYliBOL
6. TESI' 3

llI' WHICH SECI' IO N DO YOU WA l'I' TO s:i:' AEI'? 1 1 ;n.a.'_

IF YOU ARE USI m GRAPHICS
TYPE 1 AID PRESS RErURN
ELSE TYPE 2 A ID PRESS REI'OR N? 2 2 n.a.
TF.E PRI~IPAL QUAl'I'UM WMBER OF
A 3D ELECI'RO I, IS THEREFORE
I' = ? 3
3 C.2 The studE It' s rEosponse -- 3 --_
GOOD ••••
. indicatef discrimination and
identific Ition of the principal
. quantum number in the configuration '!3D"

lOW REI'ORNTO THE MAWSCRIPI'

WEE Iii YOU ARE REf,DY FOR T HE ~xr QUESI'IO N

PRESS REI' OR~, End of sub-toJ;ic

THE 'PRI ~IPALQ Iii IS EQUAL TO THE The C~2 partef this 'interaction'
Tor AL IDMBER OF WOES PLUS 1 refers to the 'identification of
THUS THE PRI~IPAL Q N OF FIG 3 the nodes in the"figure, (compre-'-
IS ••• N=?3 hension of concepts)'blit 'the C/1 part
refers to the· relatively trivial
4 C.2+ arithmeticalcperation of adding 1
GOOD •••• C.l to the number of nodes. This is a
purely combinatorial manipulation
unrelated to the subject matter.
ro
U1 It looks a bit like C.3 (application
I of a principle) but the principle is
stated. inthe.·text socarryirig out
the.opi3ration· merely indicates 'that
• the stuc1entccmprehends the sta'temi3nt.

WH1ITIS'l'HE PR[ ~IPAJ:, QN OF T.HE ',for-identification of number of

J\$',
DISI'RIBUrIONSHOWN I Iii FIG 4 5 C.2 + nodes in diagrron (C.2) plUS operation
Iii =? 4 C.l revealing comFrehension of princip~i3
stati3d, inpri3viousinteraction.
C-00D ••••
 THE AZ IMurHAL Q li CA !" HAVE ALL VALUES An interasting one 'rne student's response seems
Q

FR014 0 to Nolo THUS FOR AN ELECTRON to be an applicatior of the principle

WlTH N=4, L CA Ii HAVE THE VilLUES ••• L ;
(IN?ur EIlCH VALUE SEPARllJ.'ELY AID THEN
PRESS REI'URN: TO srop I N?ur TYPE -999)
? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? -999
GOOD •••• _
"L= (0, •.•• , Nol)" and thus looks like C. 3 compre-
hension of a principle. But the stUdent's response
6 C.3 could be merely an application of a mechanical
arithmetical o,eration unrelated to comprehension
of the principle, namely, "If N=4,
(0, .••• , N-l) =(0', 1,2, 3) "
In other words, the student can ignore the
principle and answer L~e question from simple
arithmetic. Evidence suggesting that he does not
comes much later ,,- in:interactiori23;

FOR HIsrORlCALREl'lSOl'S,THE VALUES OF THE

AZIMurF.1\!, QN ARE ASSOCIilJ.'ED WlTH A LOWER CI.SE
* Another interesting ..,ne; but' for different'reasons.
I It looks as if i t Sf luld be an example of C.2
LEI'TER L
lJ) analgous to that in interaction 3, but in this
IF L;Q WE HAVE AN S ELECTRO!',
'"
I 1 I'
case the stUdent mel 'ly has' to . reproduce' the 2'
from the table. It is: interesting beca.usethe
2 D
student gets itwro,cr :andinvites 'correction.
3 F
AID SO ON 7 B
SO A 3D ELECTRON HAS Ali liZIMurHAL QN; ? 3
,
to, YOU SHOULD IGtoRE THE !'OMBER (WHICH IS THE
The prompting strategy is to draw the stUdent's
pRI1'CIpAL Q~ AIV COtCEl'I'RllJ.'E ONTHE LEITER.
FOR AN SELECT RO N L;O attention to the distincticn between: the numbers
8 B and the numerical value for:the letterS. '-l).gain,
P 1
D 2 i t looks as if making this discrimination (which
F 3 L'le student now does tWice) could: be:reg'arded as
SO FOR A 3D ELECTRON L ; ? 2 a C.2 interaction, put becaUSe the table remains
,visible, the student merely reproduces the
, appropriate value.
GOOD •••• "tow WHilJ.' IS L FOR 4S ELECTRO Ii ? 0 9 B

GOOD ••••

At first,. this might te regarded as a C.3

"THE, AZ IMurHAL Q!' ALSO CORRESpO IDS TO
TliE!'OMl3:EROFpLAN\RNOD?S I liTHE ,WAVE FU!'CI' IO N
'THus THE ELECTRON I Iii FIG 4 lUIS TWO pLAN\R * "rating" • Granted' this, it lIight be claimed
WDES,
soL; ? 2 10
GOOD
interaction involving ~pplication of a principle.
But the principle is stated and remains in
front of the student, thus ruling out a C.3
C.l
that the interaction reverts to Type B because
the student merely reproduces the 2 from the
phrase "two planar nodes". Eut in fact the
interaction is a C.l, interact,i.0n,inVQlviIlg
comprehension of the stated j;l:iIl<::~pl~,: he must
recognise that '''L=iliiIiluthal " .", QI'FIlumb.er of
'planar nodes" to ans\.;ercorrectJ.Y. (n.b.To,
answer the questic>D, the stucerlt rleed not consult
Fig.4" hence the' asterisk.) ,,

SIMILARLY THE AZIMurHAL QN FOR TP.E

...,
lJ)
ELECTRON DIsrRIBurION IN FIG 5 IS = ? 1
HeretM studen,t mustideritify the number of
C.2 + planar nOdes in Fig; 5 (a' C.2in.teraction)
11
C.l then apply the princiJ; Ie statEl~ (and Vi,si,ble)
GOOD.~ •• inth~textiIml1ediatelyabove,,'; hence, a C.l
interact:i.on as for interacticn$!l, 5. ansl,lO.

tow REI' UR NTOT HE MA !'OSCRIPI'

~lilybUAREllEAj)Y FOR THE l'ElU'QUEsr IO "

PRESS REI' UR !" End of sub topic
 IF L = 4, HO~l HAN!' VALUES OF ~.L ARE THERE 7 9 12 C.3 The student I 3 resp)nse calls for application
of the princ iple "'1L has 2L + 1 values".
GOOD ••••

lOW REI' OR N TOT HE MA WSCRIPr

WHE!'iYOUjl.RE REAPYFORTHE ~EXI'QUEsr:rON

PRESS REI' OR N End of sub t >pic

lt1H1lI' WILL BE T HE tolL VALUES FOR A 3D

ELEcrRON FOR WHICH L=2 7 (HPUl' VALUES
SEPARllI'ELY THE N PRESS REI'URN)
? -2 ? -1 7 0 ? 1 ? 2 7 -999
'"'"
lOW, vlH1lI' ARE THE POSSIBLE VALUES OF
ML FOR A G ELEcr RO N FOR WHICH L=4
? -4 7 -3 ? -2-'? -1 ?'0?-2 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 ? -999
The response calls for al'plication of,the,
principle"M~=(-L,••• O; .•• '-tL)". " "
13 ; C.3 , If: the stude It "ere to read the ,off-line
text andseet.he."rinciple stated, the
interaction rould cevert to Type B,
ana,lQlously "ith in::eraction6.
As for inter lction 13,but not~ the, typing
p,;oblem (-2-) is a mistYfe,\>lhi<::tl th~ machine
14 :C.3
indicates by a reverse slash. Thes;ttJ4~nt
inputs the'-! out of order (fo],:J,owing Q), and
the machine recognises the setas"correct.

lOW !lEI' OR NTOT HE MA WSCRIPr

WrlE N YOUjl.RE READY FOR THE 1£XI' QllESl.' IO N

PRESS REI' OR N ,
End of'sub-t,pic;

> ~

Iffim' ARE T HE T~10 VALUES OF THE SPI N Q N Simple recall of material from text,
7 -1/2 15 B reproduced verbatim, thus Type B
? 1/2

GOOD •••• EndofsUb-t.;>pi¢

WOULD YOU LIKE TOT AKE A T Esr

7 YES 16 n.a.
IF YOU ARE USI ffi GRAPHICS
TYPE 1 A ID PRESS REI' UR N
ELSE TYPE 2 AID PRESS RErURN 7 , 7 2 17 n.a.

***'*~Esr 1 *****
,
'"
'J)

I
Wlill[' IS THE pRI NJIPAL Q K OF II
7DELEcrRON? 7 18 C.2 Comprehension ofa concept (discrimination
of 7 as prin::ipal 21') , ,
GOOD ••••

IVHffi' IS THE .AZ IHUI' HAL Q N OF A 7 D

Simple recall, pi associat,ion of numericaL value •
ELEcrRON 7 2
2 with D ele~tron ...- see interactions 7, 8, 9.
To be, a C.2)r C.~il1teractipn,wouldrequire
GOOD ••••
data ab0utPlaTlarnode",l1otavailiJble, from
19 B ~uestion (9r frpma figur~ which might be
provided) ',i.,e. the answer is not reached
byinf~rence; (see interacti9ns 10 and 11 for
the ••.basis
- . -. ,. foe
. " ....•a
.-.. possible
...... _.. ,. .inference).
. . . -0 . -0"

flOW M/IN{lODESARE THERE INTHE WAVE

Invitesa~plication,ofa principie,but answer
FU NJr ION oF' A 7 D ELEcrRON 7 2 20 C.3 is wrong -- int:ere3tingbecause it provokes
a prompt. '
 lo, THE TOl'AL lODES (PLAN'IR AN) SPHERICAL)
EQUlILS THE PRHCIPAL Q 111 MHUS 1, TRY AGAI!II
HOWMA W lOilES ARE THERE I~; THE WAVE
FU~CTIOK OF A 7 D ELECTRON? 6
GOOD ••••
~ question, ·th_~ stu{ ~nt 'must make a n:ew inference ..
HO\,/.. MA N{ PLA H\R !'ODES ARE THERE I Ii: THE
,lAVE PU N:l.' 10 Ii: OF A 7 D ELECl'RO Ii:? 2
GOOD ••••
FOR AN ELECl'RO!li \qJT H A PRI ~IPAL Q lY 1': = 4
Wll.l\T POSSIBLE VALUES CANTHE AZHiUI'lli1L QN
HAVE ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? -999
GOOD ••••
IF THE AZII1UI'HAL QN IS L = 1
HOW MAN{ VALUES OF ML ARE Tll.ERE
? -1
I
!'O, ML CA N HAVE 2L+1 VALUES
SO FOR'L=OJT CAN HAVE 1 VALUE
'".... 1 3
2 .5
3 7
HOW MA N{ VALUES FOR L=4 ?'? 9
IFTll.E'AZIl1UI'HALQNIS L= l
HOW 1'.A N{ VALUES OF ML ARE THERE
? 3
. •• and the ?rompt turns out to be an
interesting ?n~ •.. ,,£); ,involves.comprehens,ion
of the'. conce)t of, J?r,inc,ipaLQt:,· (as for. ,inter-
act,iori 3) ani'then ,inv,it€s' appl,ication of tha
21 C.2+ pr,inc,iple sttted. By leevj.ngthepr,inc,iple
B avaH~le t~. t.'1e. stuo-ent, however, ,it. merely
requLtes mec um,i¢al apP1.icaj:,ionJ;:>y thE!
arlthmet.ical op",rat,ion".IfN=7, .
(1\'-1)=6" ,(ain1J,iously ¥,ith ,interact,ion 6) •
If the stude It failed to p,iGkuPthe ar,ith:-
met.ical h,int ofthe:f,irstsentence as a purely
heur,ist.ic de ,i.oe,he m,ight pay.more.attent.ion
to the subst mce of the sentence and the second
part of the interact,ion would be C.l compre-
hens,ion of s;atement.
Another .interesth Ton",. TO answerth,is
He knows "L:,}iunbe) of plc'nar nodes" (,interactions
22 C.3 10 and 11) and the ; "the value of L for D ,is 2"
(interact,ions 7, f, 9, 19). So he can deduce
that a 7Delectron has twc planar nodes. (He,is
now ent,itled to further ~educe that a 7D electron
also has four spher,ical nodes, tak,ing account
of ,interact,ion 21)
23 C.3Appl,icat,ion of pr,inc,iple presented ,in ,inter-
act.ion 6. That the studEnt gets ,it r,ight
w,ithout the pr,i~9iple stated suggests that it
was learned at or around the time of
,interaction 6.:
24 C.3 Invites applic ,tion )f a principle leaned
at or around t1e time of interaction ~, i.e.
"!1L takes 2L + 1 values". But the st'ldent
has misread th! question and answers ll;
applying the p~inciple given in interae\ions
13 and 14, Le. "ML=(-L, .•• 0, ••• +L)". (~t is
this fact, not the form of the questionj ~at
makes this a C.3 interaction; i.e. the stu&ent
did apply a principle). In other words,
instead of saying how many values ML takes in -'h
this case, the student begins to give them, ~.
but the comput~r cuts him short with the I
first value, -1. "
The computer r !spane I w,ith a statement of the
pr,inc,iple and ,inv,it. , a new response. But, as
25 C.l was argued ,in i;he ce Ie of ,interact,ions 4 and 5
the ,interact,iol ,is r. ,t C.3 because the princ,iple
,is prov,ided an I exer_,lifj.ei'., but ne,ither ,is ,it
Type B because the student must produce a
response to a aew case but th,is only amounts to
•comprehens,ion ,.,fth", statement of the pr,inG,iple
rather than GOlprehens,ion cf the prinG,iple
,itself. (Nbte that there ,is a typ,ing error wh.ich
the mach,ine lets pass).
Given that the p:rinciple was .stated in ·.the last
interaction, this looks like another C.l. It
26 i C.3 could be •.• but it is probellly a C.3, given that
the student had no trouble with the original
presentation of the ~rincifle (interaction 12)
and allowing alsb tlatinteraction 24 was a mis-
type. 'The answer tc this~uest,ibnis provided
,in the output associateClwith ,interaGtion 25
(cont'd)
 however, so the j crther posSibilihy 'fhat
theinteracti.or....H 'of'TYj:e, B,cahtlot be'
ruled out e:onept by ·further' .questioning ,
(introspectim in this' case!)

WHl'd",:l\RETHESE,VAr..tJES 'POR L, = 1
? -1 ? 0 ? 1 ? -999 27 . C.3 Application :of principle ".l-jL= ("L ,'; •• 0, . .'. +L) ;,',
for the case' L =1'1 se,e interactions 13,'
GOOD ••.• and 14.

I N A 6 P ELEer RO N WHRr VALUES ,

CAN THE SPI N Q I"HAVE ? -1/2 ? 1/2 28 iI B Simple'recal1;, see:interaction15

\!)
,~
I N THE 8 QUESI' IO l'S Hi T HE REVISIO N
TESI' YOU GO!' 7 RIGHr IlI' THE
F'IRSI' IlI'T·EMPI' ., AID ,lRIGHr'IlI'.. T HE
SECO ID IlI'TEMPI"

VERY GOOD

THE PROGRAM IS DIVIDED lITO 6 PARI'S

' ....
1. SIMPLE Q 1\
2. TESI' 1
3 • RESUTIL' A IT SPI K I, I'D AZ lMUl' HAL Q N
4. TESI' 2 i
5. THE COMPLEI'E TERH SY~lBOL I
6. TESI' 3
ill' IVHICH SEer 10 N DO YOU WA IT TO BEGI N
? End of test

lIT ERAer IO l'S x TYPES

SUbtopic B C.l C.2 C.3 Hybrid Hyj:)rid Interactions

<::.2+ 13 c.2+ C.l'

1. Principal QN 1 1

2. Principal 'and azimuthal QN 3 i 1 3 8

3. ",MLhas,2L +.1 values" 1 1

4. "ML=(-L,; ••.;0, .•. +L) " 2 2

5. , 1
\!) Spin 1
W
I

Test 2 1 1 6 1 ,11
.~

" 24 '
6 2 2 10 1 3

Summary table, Interactiors ,in."

the CUSC,T<!IrmSgmbols pacY.<J.ge

futethat the four operational interactions (marke¢! n.a.inthe

text) are excluded from the summary table. Also note:that the
tr>..Jole includes the three interactions ,which p:Olnptcorrect
responses: ,interactions 8, crype B), 21 (HybridT Y',:i8 C. 2: + B) ,
and 25 (C.l). ' ' , ,
 interchanges are conceptually similar to Rothkopf's (1966) notion
Conclusion
of Umathemagenic activities li l i .. e .. activitie~ which give birth to
learning.
UTERMSYM U package. a.n.a,lysis; .

The part of the package analysed seems to be directed most at

Keyfeatur~s of the types of interaction are:
comprehension-type items, TYPE! C. trhree quarters of the inter-
Type .Il interactions.' Recogni tion.'
actions are either simple Type C items or hybrids of this typeL
Text-dependent; requires matching of superficial features of
Though the package is apparently primarily concerned with teaching
informati~n p;",;ented to information:previously presented;
students to use the terminology accurately, it is not "mere" drill
non-productive.
arid practice of forms of words; it engages the student in
Type B interactions, Recall,
meani,:"gful processing of the information presented., This sU'i!gests
Text-dependent; superficial engagement of students 'with
that the negative connotations usually implied by the label -,' ,:,. :>'. ' · O c '
content; reproductive; combinatorial manipulation of
"colllp{,terised programmed learning" may undervalue the educational
syntactical and logical features of text.
potenti4l of this type of CAL. It is more than mere regurgitation
Type C interactions, Reconstructive understanding or
of subject-matter: it engages the student's meaning processes~
comprehension,
Text-independent but discourse-dependent; involve semantic
SUMMARY
interactipn with content, reconstructive; productive;
In this paper, a typology of student-CAL' interactions was
involve' comprehension: of. ,statements" qOncepts,. or
developed s6 that the nature of learning sought in CAL experiences
prinCiples •.
could:be, described. 'The types were loosely derived from,theory
Type D interactions, Gl.obal r€!construct;i.ve or intui ti ve
and,'r\"search, 611 student learning and from the Claims of CAL developers
understanding,
ab01.\t, what lea,rning can be engendered through CAL. By focussing on
Experi ential learning; discourse-independent; focus on
what happens during·the learning process, the typology may ass.Lst
structure of discipline; student as master of .discipline,
spons6r¢ and developers of CAL in evaluating its educational
problem-solving;consefvat.ive of discipline.
pot~ntial. (Evidence from tests of student attainment are often
Type E: interactions, Constructive understanding,
.equivocal because tests of interest to teachers are rarely CAL-
Student "creates"fieldsof knowledge.;. discipline- .
specific and because the testing process is often remote from the
independent; expl6rat6ry, problem~finding! domain~
learning process ,-- and may thus be contaminated by a number of
dependent.
.extrarle()llS factors).
TlJ,ese d.Lf:ferell~ tyPes
. ,~'
of Interactioriallow differelltinf",rences about
the kiridof learning achieved in. CAL el<peri~ncei3. The type"
The typology suggests a number of "operational definitions" of
assume diff~rent po;./er'r"'lal::iOl1s betweent.he 1:E!ach~rormachine and
learning via CAL (i.e. different realisations of the learning
the student.
process in student-CAL interactions) which ~ay be'compared with the
"rhetorical definitions" advanced by CAL developers. Though inter-
'!Thetypology is'int,ended to be used as a rough guid" and may
action is continuous it is poss~ble todefirie a un~t of analysis in
alio., iM'eren?es ab0Uj: student. H,arning aJ:lAio<jous to>those claimed
terms of the interchange J:jetwee~ student and machine. These

- 94 - - 95 _.
on the b~sis'of'pr~tesf-posttestevaluationdesigns
typology may be '~uperior insofar as it describes learning quali-
tatively and thus suggests educational potential. (Pretest-
posttest designs are often qualitatively unspecific and prematurely
quantitative -- they tend to focus on "raw" achievement). 'The
~ ,j
Piagetian (1929) classes of response to interview questions were
presented as a further aid to classifying 'student learning from
CALinter~ctionsA
Two appl;Lcationc o£ t:.he typo1.o'9Y (bo the> ChLCnr.;~
-- but the
former is aspcciallypravalent at either end of the
educational spectrum, the la.ttor in 'b'he tim:i·dlile ll •
4 This example has been invented to illustrate the typ~)
it is not drawn from any extant CAL package.
5 This example, as wall as examples 3 and 4,are taken
from an atypical package developed by t.he CUSC Project
(known more for its work in simulation). The inter-
action takes place via a VDU' terminal. The text in
example 2 disappears from the screen before the question
appears; question and answer (typed in by student) are
displayed together.
l'MI\ op¢ct.r:a

package and to part of the ctJSC;·l'ERl'iSY~;· package) 'were p~ovided 6

See Chapter 2 "Educational Paradigms for CAL" for a
discussion of the three primary curriculum
as illustrations. r~velatory ,and
par<)?i~,sf?r CAL: instructional,
,., . .' .. . ..'. :; ,:<>
~

conjectllral,

7 Other' examples of Type C interactions (C. hC,2, and

NOTes C.3) may be found in the analysis of the CUSC'Atomic
Orbitals packa:gegiven in a later' section of this
1 Since the typology is a construcdo~bas~d6nth,;()ret.ical Chapter ('':Perial' Applications") •
and practiCzl.l cOIlcerns: about learning" it' should ,not be
thought that the comparison of these "rhetoric<)l"apd" 8 SeeChapi:er 1;" N>motheti.candIdiograp~icApproaches
"operational" definitions is a comparison between 'rhetoric to the' Evaluation of c:omputer.As~iTted~earning"
and reality. The typology is itself a perspective and has
its own kind of rhetoric; it cannot describ~ reality 9 The student has in front of him a spectrograph; he is
lt as it is".
identifying features of the 'spectrum in response to
questioning from ,the machine. The interaction takes'
2 See Chapter 3, "CAL,Forms ofT hoU<jht and Forms 'of Action " place via a teletype terminal.
for a general ,discussion of the,distinctiol1S.

3 In an earlier version of this paper,we~rol?osed the

hypothesis ,that the Types (A"'E) of ,·thetypology would'
crudel¥speaking, be p,?"itively .co,l:"related with Jevelof
education _... that is; that primary school children would
be learning more through 1'ypes A-C, and that university
students would exper~epc~ lots?f Type, E:i,pter?9tions, ,',','
We were quite wrong, as the evidence suggested. Our current
hypothesis istha:t'iIlteraction type and level of education·
'arecurvilin"arlyrel"ted: 'I'ypeE inteJ'"c~ion",ar~ as
'~o~on 'for primary 'school children as for
upper-year
university students, Types A-D are common in secondary','
school, further education and lower-year university
courses. The distinction is between subjects and objects
, of khowledge, ': that is; between all emphasis on making sense
of .<)"subject-pl?tter, for. oneself"as oppo:"ed to all emPh.as~s
in coming to understand what others say about'. it. The

- 96 - - 97 -
 PROFILE 1

DP 1/10 BllSICflJATHEMATICS

(Univ"rsity of Glasgow)

IV 'Director, Prof.J • Hunt"r, DepartmEmtof Mathematics,

University of 'Glasgo., ,

Subject rod;ter, Mathematics (topics inClude differentiation,

., .... , ..
integration, 'sets, t.'lreiiHltmensional geometry, nUDlber systems,
matrices)". 'Some work has also been undertaken 'in Physics
PROF!~E$ OF THE WORK Or SOME (problems in dynamics , electricity,' atomic alld nuclear physics ,
COMPUTER i\SSISTED LEr~RNING PROJECTS and optics) •

IN THE NATIONAL PROGRAMME, Sector:> First year Uriiversityand sixth form school level.

Role or computeri Ttl-toriell: presentation of textiquestioning,

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO feedback ,'branching. ':Guidedproblem~solving in physics • Some
STUDENT LEARNING. paCkages (e.g. three~dimensional geometry) IIlake extensive use
o of graphics 'facilities, others (e.g. integration) use graphics
in a'''non~obviClUS'' way -~ to draw mathematical syDlbols or root
signs (software-generated characrors).

"dode or interaction: Interactive.

on~linelorf-line'learning,Significant learnings are expected

to take place on-line.

Curriculritll' paradigm with which the materials are most closely

"
associated: Instructional.

Context of use, The units are USed by students as "self-help"

support to the existing lecture and tutorial course, ClIL work
is regarded as replacing conventional ';problems" classes.
Typical use is in' pairs, because -' of the large nUDlber -of -students
involved, though students sometimes choose to work alone if a
terminal <is -available,. 'rhe work is Clone in a CAL tel:minal room,
-access to tennlnalsbeing on an "appointments" basis, -so that
students sign-a timetable to book a terminal for an-hour. (The
Project's ideal would be a "cafeteria"system with open access).
Students are expected to use appropriate units aroUridthe time
a topic is being covered in lectures. The units provide practice
in dealing with -concepts, build knowledge about them steadily ane
10<Jica11y, and give some practice in problem-solving.
Q

- 341 -
- 340 .-
 Reputation of materials; Advocates of the Project's materials
focus on the quality of the carefully-produced mathematics CAL
materials, comparing them with the inadequacy of established
mathematics instruction in large first-year university classes.
The Project argues that its technique for. '!shredding" ma.the-
matical topics as a basis for instructional design has the
potential for significantly improving.existing practice,in
university mathematics teaching. On the instructional side, the
Proj",ct fEl",ls.that.itsmate:t:'ials c4pitaliseon the potential of
adaptive-tutorial CAL for giving faoetanY·,relevantfee~1back,
student self-pacing, etc. Critics have tended to focus on the
instruGtional aspectpf.the lI\aterials; they havebeencharac'-
terioeed.as ,!'C1ull, pag"'7'tur¢ng CAl" and "li.near". The. materials
have noi;:. b"ll';nwidely uSElCi oUJ;:.<i;ide Glasgow ,miversity,though
tram;fefoe are now takingplap", to other Scottish. inoetii;:.utions.
Realisation of potential: A committee of six manages the c..'Uo
. 90mpc;ment. of first. year tea<::hi\lg. :for the Depa:t:'tmeni;:... It prepares
minutes of its meetings and reports to Departmental l~eetings. As
,a l=esult,.departmental,.interest,inQ<'Uo has inpreaoeed considerably.
SofClr·asstudentuse.ofCALis concerned,the:t:'e ar", still some
problEllns of managing access, tetel=lllinals for the large nUlllber of
potential users. Once stud",nts :t:each the terminal:;;, hOwever, it
is : probably true to SaY that no bar:t:'ier"Ltorealisation '.of
potential exist -- the materials are· relatively self~contained,
and function according to design. . (4) ClinJ.dal analySis/cl,)se observation/etc:, The Project has
Kinds of learning sought, StUdent-CAL interactions with the
materi41sare generally of Types B (recall)..and C (reconstructive
understanding or comprehension), though there are aspirations for
'l'ype D (global reconstructive or intuitive. understanding) inter-
a9ti<;>ns in some areas (e.g.thim;ing s,trategicallYabout alternative
techniques for integration). .The materials fosterTypeB and C
interactions in providing opportwli ties for students to learn
facts, concepts ·4nd pr.inciplesthrough highly-structured question-
i\lg (almost ona J?"""Jramme(Llearning model).
Evaluat~ve e.viae1Jceo~ . s tuaentlear,ning,
(1) Test data, Eyidenceh4sbeen9011e9tedabout students'
performance ,on class ;;tnddegreeexaDlinati.onquestionsrelated to
CAL to1'i"s • ,Students Whous",d CAL.diCislightly bettElr on these
questionGthan.noll-c..1L users, .though analysis showed tha.t students
makiIlg greatesj:.use of CAL tended tobe.more able (so the conclusion
m\lSt be treated with caution) •
(2) .Computer,-baseddilta, .,Records hav:ebeenkept of stw.lents' locr-
on and log-ofLtirees I as well as of units used, bui;:. .these are
difficult to inte:t:'Pret in building a picture of the progress of
- 342 -
individual students. The materials are .used more or less to the
capacity of the CAL service in providing terminal time for maths
and physics.
(3) Judgment data, Teac]wr judgments have been collected by
the Project through informal feedback from Projectme.etings and
through a development group in the Mathemati<:s Depea:tment. These
have been some>lhat mixed: teacher-users (involved in the develop-
ment work) seem to judgethelllaterialspos{tively,while a few in
the Depar~ent are antipathetic to, the Project.'s. CAL. materials.
. The positive qualities attributEld to. theCAL uni.ts. include
"stlldellts are .takenthroughcempleteproblems" ,"enslll"es student
attenti0n·lf· !ikeeJ?s intere~t ali~<;il$,_l~cl"e~tes 'CC)llfid~ncell 3
"Elncourag'es students to be less careless in wrHtElIl work" • The
"self-learning" character of th~li1atel:ials<;l1d the fact that
supervision is not necessa:t:'Y. also attra.ct po~itive cOmment.
student' judgments have been collected formally (by qu~stionnaire
and voluntCJ.:t:'Y feedback forms) and support the judgment that the
materials are effective, though lIlany spe<:ifi<: suggestions for
inlproveIilElntofthe materials have been received (in keeping with
the de'Ve~op",efltaluse of student evaluativEl f 13edback) .. Outsider
judgments come. from visitors, NDPCAL site-visitors ana interested
others. ('1''''''.96 have been discussed in the context of reputation
of the materials) •
made extensive use of developmentalevaluat1on interviews and
close observation of students at .tElr:min~ls, particularly in the
earlystage~ of development. Thesegenerated much useful infor-
mation,. andsu'.:/\,es l:<2d thi'l.t students could use the materials
satisfactorily ,that they did not finddifficultywith .the use
of the te/;!Tl; :<1;:.1 (a I'otentii'l.l problem sinc~differellt units use
diffCdrant speci.'31 .d·l~'1~·a.cters~11:d students must learn to use a
key which allows ,,"'v',m ter:minal-keys to be. :t:'ede.fined f~r
cliffeJ:'en.t. s'::iaGi~,~~' <r.'~';';"'i:'acters· for ,each unit ...-'students could
handle th-a ~se 0;;' t,'i5 ;'interchangeable !ceyhoard" without
difficulty).
Achieyem"mt .in s'''".':tmt learriin'J area, . The PreJect <::a.n fairly
clailli Slc'cess 3-" .~utdeving .learnings associated .>1ith Type Band
C intej~·D;,t.j.on8on the basis of itsevaluc,Uve evidence. Evidence
oflGarli:'~la3sociatedwith Type D interactions (always more
airficuit t:o,establish) ,.~omes from c()urse.ex~n~ti()nsf more
studentstium..usual chose a difficult question on a CAL-related
topic and apparently handled it. satisfactorily. There is little
doubt that stud-an·cs learn from the materials, critics of the
- 343 -
 project. wouldrais,e questions, cipout the q\faUty of leaming terminal after asking others at nearby terminals what had
(i.e. ,in terms of ';level" of'learning) a.'1d about the means by happened when he found some ovenlriting \~hich he could not
which it is achieved. interpret on his screen. He was helped by computer staff
in the next room who explained that,it was "noise" in the
.K~ru'1s" of learning possible : ",TJ-.e'Glas\Jow '!1aths~tYle of CAL, system and occasionally happened when the room was being
beitig ~'ttorial,lendsit$elfparticularly to achieving the kinds heavily used. He had no difficulty getting back to work.
of lciarni.1gsassocie>.tedwith TypeBand C interactions (Type A
recogniti()Il --, is ,all:io ,possible). The analysis of topics
("shredding"') Dlld1;ask analYl:ii.swhieh 'tIlderpillthe, development
of the matedalsareree>.lised,iIl the, materials in highly struc"
tttred, langua~e- (and "':YmbQl-)I:>asea forms of learning. It is
easy to underestimate the irnpQr1;<U1ce. of these fundarn,m~al forms
of learning ; the Project' 5 style Of CAL d"velopment is likely
to prove m()Elt effective .,here these,l:Jasic,forms of knowledge
are,' beingtaughtanCiwhere existing pr()yision fails tc> ,engage
each student's eX'.:>erience in a tho!ough-going ,and systematic
way.

AtypiCalleafningexpefience, ,Astudentar~ives at the

tel:lllil1al roomtq ,1N'ork On a., topic in three-dimensional ,geometry •
When his tim,"~abled "<lppointment" is due , he moves o"er to the
tel:lllin<ll, Cl.IlQ logs On. H<l"ing used the ,tenainal befo!", he skips ,
the basic typing exercise atid goes straight on to the unit of
his choice, dealing with the concept of colline<lrity. He h<ls <l
s,tudent guide for ,tilE! Unit which 'Jives ,inf0l:lll<l,1oion about typing
" a.n(lspecia :Lch",racj.:ers,shouldhe, need i1o, and thE! appropriate
C010't.r-coded specialc:hllract",X"'; key is mounted, ,on the terminal.
,He is <;lsked a few basic; questions which le<la himintD <l di<llogue
abpu t lines <U1dyecto:rEl. "M he, responds, the m<lchitie gives
feedl:>ack,sometd,mes; g1ves aprolllP1; or hint <lnd changes; ,the line
of <lpproachtq 1:he concept b",i.nc;r "discussed". Questions focus
On theint.,rpret",tion of piagrams displayed on the, terminal screen
,in x, y, and,zcoordinaj:es~ .,AS the dialogue progresses, di<lgrams
_<lre extendeo-to'provoke respons;"s to more elabor<lte,questions.
At times 'the screenbec:omes, very full with text and- di<lgram, and
wl,ile it is sometimes hllrd to read, it is no' more, so than the
fllmili<lr bl<lckboards of the lecture room. F'rolll time to time, the
student makes <l note 0 11 ajotter or copies a diagrl3lll for his own
use' (though ,the Project does not particularly encourage -- or
di",cpurage --- note--taldng fro!Jl ,the CAL session). After finishing
tb'.:opic in about h~lf an hour, the student moves on to the next
geoi,;etry 'tIlit, but li::Jgs off befqreit isccmpletedas,lllother
studenth<lil <lrrived., During the sessiol1 , the room has been fairly
quiet, though at the other side of the rO()lll a group of students
wo~:king together at tWo terminals on the same unit hav~ been
discUssing thElir progress. On One occasion a student left a

- 345 ..
- 344 -

PROFILE 2
DP1/01LEEDS J.1PPLIEDSTJ1TISTICS FOR SOCiAL SCIENCE STUDENTS
PROJECT
Nml DP 1/0113, AN INSTITUTIONALISATION PROJECT IN COMPUTER
,1SSISTED LE1!R1vING.
(University of Lee(~, LeeGs Polytechnic, University of Bradford).
Director, Rog",r Hartley, computer Based Learning Project,
Leeds University.
SUbject-matter, Applied statistics (there are about 200 small
modules in the CAL materials, covering most topics appropriate
for a one year introductor-y course in statistics for social
science stud",nts, e.g. measures of central tendency, hypothesis-
testing, analysis of variance etc.) •
Sector.' Higher education.
Ro1,? of Computer, Tutorial,· presentation of text; qu",stioning,
guiced problem-solving; pzovision of cefinitions f calculation;
browsing facility for returning to earlier material or self-
routing. 'I'he Leeds statistics system also prOVides a feedback
and analys5.s of student performance for teachers (and stUdents) ,
and a sinalation package for use in lecture-demonstrations (it
allGws the teacher to illustrate statistical concepts). The
system supports initial instruction, it is intended to proviCe
addi tio:lal practice. Use of the system as a ~~Ol'tl:rlf;'i:'cll¥e"":I&;' 9 _
lA~lrt1 .f~).l'bir.i.jjtJLa.l .teaching 'is n0t 'i:'ecoJ:Jr.lenJed.
Mode of interaction., Int",ractive.
On-1ine/off-line, Significant learnings (in the fona of con-
solidation of statistical ideas and techniques) are expected to
take place on''''line; i.e. in the practice prOVided by the
tutorial.
CurriC11.!um pa.rad:i.gm with which 1:..'1e materials are most closely
associated: g",nerally speaking, instructional. For some uses
of til'" materials (e.g. of the simulation package), it may be
revelator-y.
Context of uset The materials arB used by students individually v
teletype terminals are generally available in t",rminal rooms.
.. 346 -
r
r,rhe stude.xlt ;&,€'s ,~t':·:r.ec(;.d·v::~_·.tTti tia~,.t:G ..fl,<::h.ing'through,·GhL, the
materialsar" ,int..m d"dto provide, "ddition"lpractice.
Occasi"nal i.ls;e has beeilmade, of, the l1'Y"!ltem fpr,initial(self-)
teaching as ,a"repl~cement" for a "ollventional courr;;El but the
'projectdoer;;nQ1.::t::ecCJmm"ndt.1lis. ,':1os{si:"tistics, c:°':lrses
using CALth.US' do so in addition to conventional lectures.
Class",s af,studentsw"rk through groups of Inorju;I.es s"leC,ted
for t:h?.lll >y their, te<ichers," Dr-actice is thus tCl.i.lored to b'16
d",m"n.ds, oft"acl1er-s . The materials are aC,c:()mpani",d by Student
Guides which contain relevant theory, concept!l"lld,tbelike.
Reput",tiop ,of materii!3.1s", Ov\,r,a, dozen deg"rtlnellts. i,,, ):he
J?r"ject's three 'co"ope:r::at:l!'lg ins1:itutions(University of Leeds ,
Leeds Polytechnic, BraClf.oLd. pnivers5.t.y) use, the statis;tics
materials an a q.aY-tQ-4ay basis. Six other in13t:itu1:i,onshave
express"d realinterest.in,1lSin<j the system ,,-sit becomes
"vailiible in a machineTindependent: fOl11l (i.",. :fre", of the
!1odularOn",comPllter at tb", Computer EasedL",arning Project).
The, -syst~ it~e~ri,~ la1?;:T,~,'(2()() 0;: so modules:',~f t.fJ?ch~r!~
mat~riri_ls,t EVi:1~~:Pl-\'rE f Ci\ll..:ui,J~~'r;s-. ,Md slr~lrs_ faqil:Lti:es,;,~tq•.> f
but mlq1oj: be. thought j)edagog-ically modest. Tl1e"delib';rat",
choice'· of teletyp", te~inals to explore thE! i?otentia].ofCi\L
\'1i til 10·,]·-c:::3 t hardware reduces the pedagogical options in
thes~}sf3 tl1at, some::t.ol)i~sQtld,}·4pd~s::()f,::,inte;c:L~,t:i.Oll,.aP1~ear to
l:>e',r~l~~J_;J';t::~" ?1.1;~the:t:;;or~J .,.;tfiE!·'!nat~~~~,~s: ~,r.e,:·:r19F,Jntendl:?d to
be,' P_f:I:-~~~L"~Llie":r]Y,', J.~1ijf.)'Vati ve:~: :3~~ '. ~e;-pl:?~~ci~ ·,.pu.t:s~t:, ",' : :'f~.~~
a~~ep.,. S~,:t:'~7i. CEf,,' 6~L}aX',~~n.t ,'_ ~oi;, "~;':" c~rric1.}~tm;l:,."qevel?J?~~,n~ :',.J?::(.)j ect
in s:td'i:istics ~'H The -'scale of use of' the mat¥ri(l~s,,~Vl,~thJ:tl the
co-oper·:"t.:tn<] institutions is quite impressive, but until 1976
resourCCE > ~il:-fe !l?t,?~va,il,~ 1(3) for ,t1?fIAsf~r:1Je~<?n~, ': 1:118 o:t:::i:ginal
eo-ope")li;-:l-"eg:tpl:p.· It, fhollld b" added ,thattheS'2mp\I~er­
Ba~~d.c~:.J~~Frd.l.t:J,Ptc:jrct.;i.f3, ~.' ,lec;4er among., U!1~'~E:~~i tY'-i?~,f;l~d
rel:)~aj:·91~". q.nr:1 .: cJ.f,·qeiqpm~!'l t. t~~~,'~n,;qu:,""",~,tle. Proj EJc'~ .~J.'lp0'-lptedly
~ :r...- has on~' of tI-~a roost t1ieof~tiqally~sophi!:,;t,:ic:ateq.te~~··:L~·,:the
National Programme ..
Rea.Usa tiQil ofPbtent.fal, ,1'h~ matElri",lsl1"vebe~l}usedunder
typical c~~ii6-it,ioris,. ~?,r.Sill~9,:t91~~.a~. ,peris~s ~nd.,~i th }l"vClriety
oft.ypes, ofstuCen1;S .·r.,t is, probiib1y t:<:ue" to say th"t. the
Pr()j"cthas t?e D:l~as\lf" Sf th~matel:ial",! having se",n:th"m used
in 'the kinds'ofc:orit.~,~l::S for 1'(hich they we:::"ae~igned.Some
tOllics, covere4,hY sets ,. of: '. mOdul"s, '"re in,ne,e90£, f1.\rth"r
revision (intl'ri.'pl:"0jec):'s vie",) .-' this is the mO,stsignificant
limitation oil, ,);-;::..lsat:i0n Of ,po):entialmcintion"d by .iOhe Project.
Given adequate compl1ter arrangmllents' the matel:"ialscUll
apparently be us",q effectively; The Project points out that
the computer b"se<t, leal71ing ,system is '!limp~eenough ,to al1~M
- 347 -
 r
,
students to use the materials without supervision and a high
level language ,allows teachers to custom hUil~ sets of modules
to support their Cifferent courses. Large-scale trials of the
Leeds, Statistics materials outsid8the co-operating insti tu-
tions of thel?roject (which would test pot"ntial in a less
"sympathetic" enVirOnlllent) aX'e now being organised.
Kiildsotleaxl1ing S()llgh~: >ioststudent-¥ interactibns in
theadapti"e~tutorialmaterials developed by the Project are
TJrpec (comP7'ehension) , J:'ut some TJrJ:Jo D., (~ntti:l.tive understanding)
ihteractions' are €lvi,dent. ,,', ' , '.
£'valuat~veel1idence on student learning:, 'Theproject has
?f
cClrried out . ~ 01.Jr-.P9:t:' evaluat~ve and re~€:~:t~h studies f " often
con~ern?d \>1~th' l;)'~:udBn'c, attit:ude .,a;~d:~fhi,evement~_. Ingeli~ralf
the_c~ntral team 'are' t::.cisfied l\7i the 'f;heresultsof these: studies <1
but are cC\\ltious i.n ,t".~ generalisations which they lllakefrom
them~ .' F~?m ~bS8t',"'QJ:ic\T13 ,of:~t1.l97nt.:le:afI1:tng a~d. froDlother
data, they concLc"!'3t~,at the materials are. ',dequateto their
pUrposes; and. eff0:.:;ti"'81Y,:~UPPlementeXi~ting provis!cn.HetJorts
of such Project studies have bee published in internall?a\)~rs
l1
of the Computer-,Based Learning Project (CDLP) , and in, the •
relevant research j o u r n a l s . ' , though the Leeds Statistics part of the CELl" s'portfcilioof c.;\L
(1) TGstdat:a: Course examination data is available on trials
inse~'eral ~e:9artmel1ts,thou'Jh it has only infrequently been
subjected to intensive analysis. ,Ne~ertheless, the results are
encouraging: students do show learning 9ains through use of
the matedals.
(2) c()mpui::I?.r~based data: Careful records are kept of student
perf0rJJlClhce()n modulesahCl are fed back to teachers using the
EVAI,UATEfacili ty. In this way, tear.:.!'ters can assess the module-
b~~mO'dule:)erformance()~' ·st.u~ent~,mani tor pro'Jress p and' the
liJ<:e.. Teachers find the facili ty usefu1.
(3)Judgrn~nt data, Tea-cher Judgments have be"n collected
formallyandinfcrmally by the Project ("specially in the early
stages)'aIld, sU9'gest that the, materia~s are highly, valued
'i:hcugh th~re may be,lilome ,f1<'~TS ind"tail). , student jUdgments
have also been collectedfo:qil~lly andinfoIl1!ally. Theysuggest
that, the materials are generallyfoUlld helpftll, by thesttldents
for l1hom they were 1"sign'ed. Outsider jUdgrr/ents var.l from the
.disin~sf.;ive... :cornm7nts6~ . '~ tl1()s"e c>PP?s,ed <-in prin9iple .to t\lt9ria1-
type CALm ,the positive enthu,siasms of Dotentlal users and
members of serviqed departments.' - record of nis··atbendanC8;-and hi's performarice--has been stor~d'on the
(4) Cli,,-ical' aM,lysis/close obsei:liat1.oh/et6.: Very little highly
intensive observation has been carried out, though the Project did
'. 348 -
use observations of the materials inaction to evaluate the
feasibility and appropriateness of this kind of CAL. Such data
has been absorbed into revision work on some modules and topics.
i1chievement instudeht learning area, T11';'i>roj~btcanfi'iirly
claim success in types of learning related, loo Type ,C, iflte:r:a.<:tions
in particular; and in Type D. It would be possible to extend the
materials more into the "higher" levelS. 'ol:th"tY:l?ologyand to
explore further applications, of CJlLtechnology in Sl.~"i .. tics
Cours,,"s made' pdssible throU',,-h the' Project team alldthecBLF.
Kinds of learning possible: Given the commitment of the Project
to exploring the. possibilitiesd adaptive.ctl.lt()ria.:I. Cf'J. , ,,',,'
, appropriate for supporting courses with the kin& ()fproblelllsof
statistics for'social science students-thatis, gl.lided practice
to SUPl?ortservicecourseswhere students 'arebften poody ,
mativatedor inadequately prepared for' the simject':'nia.Her '':' it
would be faix to say that the kinds of learning l?()ssible through
qAL of t111s type will always beprimarHy those'expectedon the
basis of Type C interactions. Some Type D interactions are also
possible within the general framework of,thedesi9nOf the modules,
developments is less suited to 'L'ype n than to Type C interacti~)fls.
1l tgpicalilearning 'expeHenc,,,, ;,neconomics student' comestb the
terminal room in the'University's CAL service a:Eter the aa.y's
lectures are over and sits'dowliat.a t'El1et~'l?e") <He'is usin9the
Statistics materials in connection wi~, an introductory statistics
course. The topic for the course at the rnollielitis"tliesamplihg
distribution. He looks at the StUdent Guide and reminds himself
of the concepts and formulae introduced in the clas.s'atthe last
session .. ' Logging on to the terminal,' he quickly works through
several simple tutorialexercisesfi'ulliliarising him with the can··
cepts tllensettlesdown to some more d8lJlanding problems., The
machine questions himi then provides feedback onhi~aIlswers, some-
times providing a promptorremihding hi of :r:el~vClntconcepts.
lll
Towards the' end of' thehburhe spends at ~'1e·termimi.l he ~lOrks 'with
the concept of the sampling distribution, drawing random'samples
from apopulation of scores stored,in the machine, then he b\li,ldS
a distribution of the 'samole"means.' From tirtieto'time' he turns
aside' fr()mthe terininal,t6maRe simple ,s~etc!:les '"ona ,notepad.
At theehdof the session, he logs off ,and 'tears his printo\lt off
the' rolFonthe teletype before leaving; '~erhapshe,wi1:I refer to
it again if he goes over th,~CAL exercises in revising the work • A
system and "ill be sent'td ,his 'tutor soon 'after the eh,"of 'this
subsection of ~"e course. Some other students who have not been
using the CAL materials may be asked to meet the tutor who will
check en their prog'ress} his performan~p has been satisZactory so
it is unlikely ~"1at he wi 11 .n.~8c1further help from the tutor in
this topic.
- 349 -

DP 1!0611 COldP.UTBR llSSISTBDLEilRNING IN CHEMISTRY
(LEledstlnivefsity,Sl),effi"ld Polytechnic ~~'c seven other
.cU70perat{:lg .1';1'"titutions) .~..'c, . .
Dir~C~()r,< ~ro.f. f.B.liYsqOu9-h, Department ofPllYsical CIlem!stry,
Leeds University ..
subject 11!att"'r:s:J:!emistry• . There are, broadly speaking, four
ki1'l~; Of prqgranls • in dElvelopment: (~~ experiment planning (e ,g •
()n the a"so,ciati9n constant .of FeNCS ... h (2) Elnhanced tutprial
(e.g •. ac::ids" bases "'!ld.indicators ; ba,sic th e rJl1odynamicsl,
(3) spe9tra,.an,aly",i,s (e.g. interpretation pf nuc,lElarmagnetic
:t:'esElnanc::esPectr!'l , and (4) problem solving programs (e.g.
inorganic, Ch"!llj,str],id,mtification p:t:'0bl<9l!ls) •
. S€!c.to:r;;Hj,ghereducation. p);'ograms. are,. u~edmostly by first
and second.year university anq polyteCilniq ",tudents,
Rol€!s of computer, Extremely diverse in CALCHEM, including
enh",nced. tutori",l., 9a,J,qul",tion, graph-plotting a!lg som§' simu...
lation. CALc::llI!:~. progJranl'" .1,\se limitElelgra,phiqs,.having been
deve19ped for, a,lpl1",,.!lumeJ::ic terJl1.in(lls.
Mqdeof intera,ctii9ns:: Interactive.
:+n.most prQgJ::anls, significant.learningsc'."re
Op-lin€i!qff,.:rin", ,
eXPected t9 ti'lkElplaqe on-line,th9ugh some parts of program",.
(e .g.;
for calcul",tic!l; and graph,..plotting) SUppq:rt oif':-line
lea;rnings. ~pme p;r0\l':raDlS are also. ;for theory:revi",ion, qr for
planningang thus ~"PI'ort og-1i!le.lea:rning j,n this. se!lse,
(The Projecttskes the view. t:h?\:tCAL,i,s.less effective for
initial teaChing than for support of more, regular curriculum
.' ' ' , '" '.'. ..,:c.·.. ".·· _• . . ' _.•..... .' •. - ',' .' .' C,'
provision),
C1Jr:r;,icu:rumparadigu, \1i th wh;i"h t:hem"'1:",rials arernost closely
associate!l: again" e;lCtremely diffi9ult t().a",sess;forC:J1.l:.CHE:t1.
,Tu:tpri<\+,pr()9J::am",are91o~est,1:(),the instructional,par?\digm:
p l .aJ1ni l?\1 ; anet ,pJrp.t>lElll)"solying ,. ol?eshave ~a mol'", .reve3,atory ;f'l;avour;
i l1fo rnlaj:i,?n7p:roqessing. ;facili:tie~. wi t:hil1 progr<'ll)lS ,are,emanci-
patory, In:t",:rpretati@pfsp;3ctrZ\ programs can bUi,lg a
rev,?latory sup"r",tructure on· an instr1,\"tionalfoundation.
r :"'~"-'
Contexts of use, Programs areUs.,dbY studentslndividually,
.' sometimes in pairs or even threes; They~e "seH..contain",d"
in the. sense that they ar:e. designedtO)Eil usedwi~~~,m~~imum
(CAJ:,CHE!'ll of academic tutorial support; Some p~()gr:ams'1lSe~~Pi?()rj:
materials (oftentopro"idegh'PhiCS) /allha....e.ac:qRmPaIlying
student guides. Prbgrams (as th~irlaJ)elsimply)·S"PJ?()~1: .
laborator, work (theoryrevis.i.0Ilor~xperilll§'nt.pl<;U1hiIl'1.r;>fi()r
to. laboratory work)orlect~es." (spectri'l inte:r.t>rej:ati9n .•
progratnS),thoughtheproblem-'solving packages are •.Ii)ore iIl~e
nature of an independent exercise. Overall, the programs are
strictly an enhancement of existing provisioIl' theyare .
regardedqsinappropriatefo:t· replacemEirltof ini tia~ teac;hing.
R",putationofmaterials; . CALCHEWstutoria.l>pr6gF+s~ave.
a:t:trqcte<:'! someneg.ative judgments within the. NatiRn~l Progr~e -
the Project has sometimes been regarded' as primarily a. "computer
assisted instruction" operati~n, though I t ha~ Ch<l~~c'lunder the
stereotyping. The diversity of styles ofeAL in th", .I?roject
w6ula seElll)to,explode the niythof CALCH.EMas a CA;J: Project,
thoU\jhequi;'llly.itis true that about thr.,equarters .of the
Project's programs are eithertuto;t'ia];inc~aractEilror cont~n
some tutoriaL style material. Overall' reactioll to the program s
i~ fav9urable I the inter-instituti~nalco-operation ensures
tha:tp:t:'0grams aredeveloped.,ithi'lIleye to tr.aIlsfer •. som~ .
P9tentialusers may find the lack ofa stroIlggrCl.r;>h~c:s ?R~P?nEmt
aliabiJ,ity, (The Project is anxious to explore possibl.hties
for development on. the graphics side), . . .
Realisat,ionof Potential,' Some 26 programs have been testeo unoer
typicalusagElconditionsi 13more··'aret'eing tested, arid 0ttiers are
.mger oElvelopment. Given adequate computing support and curriculum
integration they appear to be realising their poten~ial. Some
short;falls from ideal use have bee identified (e.g;~seof the
exp~:riment planning programs afterllstudents have been "contaminated"
'for the CAL learning experience by seeing otherstudellts w9rk~ng on
the CAL .related experiment in the lab.; tmdefemploymentof.~e
pr0.t>lem-",olving programs,. possibly' because pr:~ssure ,in traditional
,.'_,." ',_ '.,. ,_ ,,' ',.' .",.. ' ......•
higl),eJ::"educqtion. Chemistry curricula may .lead potential users to
:t:'egar:4,:t;hem.as.a ."frill" rather than a rieceS9.tty)<
Kind$) pflearningsought, ,Student-CAL interactions. in'CAL.ctiEM
prcxJra)l)S are.most liJ,elyto be of TypeC(reconstructive .uncler-
stand.i-!lg or. ,comprehension),though examples ~f Types B (recall)
and D (global reconstructive<or intuitive unaerstanding) are also
to be found.
,- 351 -
 Eval ua ti veevit'ler)<;e on s; tUdep tlearning ,
(1) Test: Dat:a:c;:ours.e examination data is ayailaJ:>le, but only
one maj()rtes~-ba!3.edev"luai::ioneffort has. been made (at the
Open University') I . this sugge",tedthat9n relevant. content
CAL-using stJlden~'! p e r fo :rmedsligh1;ly. bEl'tter .than non,.users,
Harty Cl\LCEj;;M I'r6gralllss~ructure work being done by students. for
assessDlent.l e ·g·l,ab° r Cl t pry planning programs}. Test data
suggests that: ",tud,mts 'p:elearIlingi:.rom the.CALCHEH programs.
Test resufts alsoproyideCl.basis fgJ:;teacherjudgments>ofthe
value. of tl~e pJ:;ograms. ..
{2}. computer-bi'lseddat~: .ll.ecoras are kept .of.useof. packages;
·students keep printout which is often used in writing up lab
reports fprass'fssment.~. Usage:rates are .highbecause CAL~lork
colltribptEil",. to assessment and. perfoXDlancEisuggests .. that· students
are learniIlg through ~. . to work with a minimum of fuss. They take theJ.r work serJ.ously.
,....
(3) Judgment Data, Teacher. judgment/;; have been collected by
the l?roje<::t: tl)roughillformal inteJ:;Views, project committees· and
working part:i.es 'Clnd the 11k",. Qsersatisfaction is high, tdth
many tead"':rS collaJ:>orating.$.n program dev elopmeI1t:.. Program
usage is high acrO",sthe federatipn of CALCHEM institutions.
Studentj'ldgments .have been c:ollected> formally (by questionnaire)
and il1fcn:mally (illformai interviews,feedback to developers),
Attit"des ~re sometimes positiy~, but criticisms remain (e.g.
~ome tl)<i)orj' revision packagesiseE'-lIlunnecessa;ry to "big-he,flying"
stUdents) •. Outsider judgme.nts C9ll1e.from potential users/
aUdiences at conference presentations of CALCllE14 \~ork, NDPCAL
site-visitors, and the. li.ke.Thematerialsare "selling"
fairly well and .the number of .'.'externar'.transfers of materials
{i. e.. to. illsti tUt:ions outs.i.;de.th", CALCHEH . federation} is illcrea<>ing.
UU Clinical analyses/close observation/etc., DEi\7elopment
evaluation. efforts include observation of·students at.terminals,
oft"'Il by teaqqer.-develope:rs of packages. The project has not
canied out mUch close analysis of the learning process
explicitly to study how.stJlde,ntslearnfromClILCHEW packages,'
student assignments supply t"achers \~ith fine-grairiedsul:>s.tantive
data about what. hasbeenlea:rned from a CA'L-Jjllis,.ex!:'eriffiliRtE~e,
such data serves mostly to inform the judgment of teacher-
developers -there has been little intensive evaluatiori>.aimed at
cha:r,:,cterising. the Programs.· as learning experiences. (Case
studies of pac!,:ages, produced for the Project' 'I Final Review
presentation, partially. remedy this deficit),
;1chievement in Student le,1rning area: The Project can fairly
claim success in learning related to 'l'ype B, C and D inter-
actions.
o
- 352 -
\
Kinds of learning possible: Since CALCHEM does not have a .
particula:runitary"style" of CllLbut has explore~.the,po~entJ.al
of CAL in a range of. styles across a range oftopJ.cs ,J.t J.S
difficult to summarise ..tl)e kinds of learning possible,· The
lack of a stron<J graphics componentlimitsthe range. of· inter-·
actions possibleinCilLCHEM programs 1 the Project' s commitment
to guiding students . {rather .than using more open-ended
curriculum appr()aqqes} may limit its aspirations (e.g. fo:: con-
jactural paradigmprogr<lllls appropriate for final year proJect
work by studEilnts) ••
;1 typical learping experience: ThJ:;ee second year .university
students in a joint physics and chemistry course com., to the
te=inal room next to the laboratory. They cluster around one
of the three teletype terminals in the small s!?ace and ge~ do,.n
After a brief run through the student guide they call. up the
"kinetics and mechanism of the oxidation of formic aCJ.a by
bromine" program, one of the experiment pl~n~ing pack~ges. The
program engages them in a brief t.heory revJ.~J.on exer~J.se., One
of the group types, the otl)er two look on, J.nterruptJ.ng wJ.th
ideas correcting typing errors, inteJ:;Preting the responses of
the m~chine. This is a lively threesome, and each of the group
seems to have his say; sometimes one student gets cu~ out when
three work together at a terminal like this. 'rhey q';lJ.ck,lY pass
through tlle revision section and go on to make a choJ.ce netween
four possible methods for follOWing a reaction - only t,.o ar~
real contenders and 1:1'1e other two are dismissed when the chaJ.11 ,
of questions posed by the machine leads the stude~ts to see theLr
inappropriateness. They show no hesitation ch~:J.ng ~etw~en.the
two appropriate methods (spectrophotometric anc" ,,;rof methoos) ,
they had a '~disaster~) witi'.t an Emf experiment once .bef~r~. .
Nevertileless, the program takes t.'1em through the JustJ.fJ.catJ.on ns
for their choices by questioning ,. and they respond ~ th~ questio
with interest. 'l'hey seem willing to probe th: ma~hJ.ne wJ.th
tentative answers, to see how it responds, ana qw.ckly take 'Q
arivantage of new info:rmation elicited. They refer to th~ machJ.ll-
a~ a kind of mechanical taskmaster (A: "It's not ~nsw~rJ.ng the
t' .. B' "It's refused to because the Br wJ.ll J.nterfere
ques J.on. . , , 2' 't th'nk th"re
with the Br ". A, "I suppose it's sayJ.ng J.t doesn ~ ~
3
is a way of doing it." A, "It's programmed tO,accept ='1-
' gs • ") • From time to time they check th,nr lecture
spe 11 J.n notes
d th
or the theory hand-out for further information; no"! an _ en,
,.hen directed by the machine, they refer to the VisJ.cara System
beside tlle terminal which provides graphical or other data not
stored in the machine but relevant to the program. In the one
and tllree-'quarter hours they spend at the te:rminal, they move
- 353 -
from revision to reasoning through their choice of method;
go on.1;o detailsolutibns, concentrations, apparatus and the
like; and then work through an exercise which helps them PROFILE 4
decide how. to use their results to choose blatweerFthree ..
'~

possible mechanisms . underlying the reaction ; At times , .• their

attention.•dces ~lander,. but. the group is distinctly task-
oriented and perseveres. until the program is complete.·
At the end, .they sum up. the session, "It certainlyniakes
you think of what you!re doing rather than JUSt being presen- DP 1/02 ENGINEERING SCIENCE PROJECT IN CONPUTER ASSISTED
ted with the apparatus and told what to do ••• well, with LEilPJ!lING . (ESP)
t.'1at one, anyway." "Sometimes it's like a brain-teaser,
sometimes it's· a bit of achore ••• it just'depends how you (Queen Mary College, London; Imperial College, London;
feel. ~l
University College, London, Leicester Polytechnic, Plymouth
Polytechnic; University of Exeter) . .

Director, Dr. P. R'. Smith' Faculty of Engineering; QMC Lon.don.

SUbject matters, En.gineeringSci.ence; Aeronautical, Electrical

and Electronic, Mechanical, and Nuclear Engineering; Envirol1-
mental Chemistry; Chemical Engineering.

Sector: Higher education. Packages are USGd by first; second

and third year liN!l' and .~l.Sc. students.

Role of the computer: 1\10stly simulation. " Calculation and graph

plotting facilities. Many pa~ke.ges. make· extensive use of graphics,
t.~ough some work through alpha-numeric·VDUs.

Node of irtteraation, Interact:1ve.(fast batch machine at :liIperial College)

On-1ine/off-'line ·leairl.ings,. Sigriif1cant learn,l.ngro;·· arb expected

to take place on-line.

Curriculum paradigm with which the materials are most closely

associated: Revelatory. Some are also Er.:anciJ?"toryrerJucing
student labour,- as with the AC Analysis package which frees the
stUdent from many tedious calculations.

Contexts of use: PackagesarEi used bysroal1. groups of students,

by pairs, and by individuals (soDletimeswn:h a demonstrator
present) iandin lecture-demonstrations (I!0:rhaps with graphics
output shown via CCTV). For packageSused9utside .lecture-'-
demonstrations ,. students ha·"e supporting· student guides often
including teacher-set exercises, uSlli,lly the packages follow
introductory ~~eory lectures.
In general, the packages enhance existing provision. Contexts
of use thus vary widely.

- 354 -
- 355 -
 r
Reputation of materials: Varies across the range of packages
produced. Of the two most popularpackag"s in transfer terms,
the ACl Circuit lmalysis package is seen by some as low level
calculation, but can still fuel a series of lectures and
exercises for Polytechnic HND students, or form part of a week's
work on a first year Physics course. The ANTENA package, on
the other hand, uses a graphics terminal to illustrate alter"-
native linear phased array antenna designs: . it is milch more
powerful than the alternative arrangements of laboratory equip-
ment, and gives the student insights into the theory as he
varies parameters and quickly sees the effects on the polar
plots. ".
Realisation or potentJ.ai, Quite apart from their; .w ide"rread.·use,.
it would seem that most packages have now been used under typical
conditions, and that, giveA adequat" il).tegration into cO\lrse
contexts and adequate computing facilities. the ·materials are
realisingthei:r fu].l poj;enticll. ESl'. dqes. ;"ot en.force a rigid
'house style'of packag,,; pl'."eferl'."ing. to enc0\lrageflexibility
through diversi ty, though thoa •sponsorship , system of vetting
every fresh package by a colleague institution helps to guaranteoa acce;:>t·
abili ty and sb::.ndards(~. d::CW:1e ntat,ion.. It 2eems that uc-er imtitutions
have all thoroughly assimilated I'SP packages in1;;o their cours"s,
and that the packages are being used \iithout serious impediment.
K.inds of learningsougll1:,<, 0Ae instit:llt:1Cll) has.a comput~r~
assisted assessment package. t1hichh"lps stuC!entsw1.th their
revision, and this is clearly ofTYpoa B (recall) and TYPe C
(comprehension). Som", of the T)i:~CH suite>cl1:eJ?rogramme manual
packa.ges of Type C(comprehension). The me\jority of the
packages, however , ":r"of Type 1) (g10p,"\1. recOAstruction) , where.
the student gains an understanding ·of a model by varying its
parameters and observing the effects on the graphical display
terminal.
Evaluative evidence ,on. student: learni 12g,
(1) Test data, At Plymouth, a course unit on waveform
analysis, including two CAL Packages, was oavaluated at five
points by m"lti-it"mtest qu"st.icnnnries (reported in
Broadhuriilt at d. 19(7) •. l),t ImPe:rial,Cm:, is sufficiently 1'ell .
integrated il).to the third. year heat transfer .course to form a
maximum of 45% 6f. the a$ses$ment marking: teacl1ers, find .• the
marks quite el1c:ouraging. . . ... .
- 356 -
(2) Comput",r-bas",d data: .AutQIllated collection of usage
statistics ~s carried Ol.1ta1;;. QMl; and Exeter 1 •• ' the student
revision package at Lei~este:tlnaybemonitor"d.
(3) Judgment data '.Teaoher: jud'JJl1eh~sarefrnl?lt~itin;t.he
growth ofCJIL deV:e1.opers from the 9~iginal four Or fiV:e to
about. forty: 39 dj;£fer"Ilt ni1I!lesappellr 011 the initilllspeci-
ficati1Jn uocuments !=()r the 75. pa.ckages, lIsfo;r the less
involve~ .tea~ll?rs,.th.€! .ProjeCt can po~nt •t?· tr.llnsfe:rs of • ' 54
packages t028ihS~i~llti0IlS i.n B ??llntri"':;th0ug~l as eyer,
there isli ttle .f"'?<lba.<;:}ton use .fromth€i red_J?ie11.ts. Of .all
the engini3eriri'J~J?ecialisllls; only the civil "ngineers remain
untouched bi' theproje?t, Stlldent jUFgm"lltsr-ave beel).
ccllected by quest!?llmiireatHve ins.titJ,lti011.s i . il).ti3rvie",s
have been wide:ly us.ed for fOrmative "'ya].\lation of ;"e"!mate.rlal.·
In general, a~d w~iist},minoi:itYOf S1;;ud"11.ts lJlayr8lllain un..
moved, theri3is ac1.ear con"ens ll!3 thatCl\Liswo:rthwhqoa.
Outsider jUdgments st8lll f:r<Jmpot",ntia.l Us€ir!3 ,visitprs ,and
audiences at conference presentations, exhibi tion~ and the like.
All project institutions have been active in this area, and the
external transfer record suggests a positive response.
(4) Clinical analyses/close observation/etc., Close obser-
vation has been undertaken at most institutions - the role of
demonstrator facilitates this - and followed up by informal
student interviews. UNCAL'S David Tawnoay (1977) gives a
detailed description of one CAL course, linking close obser-
vation to questionnaires and interviews.
Achievement in student learning area, The Projoact can fairly
claim success in learnings related to Type D interactions (and
Types B an,: C). The simulations seem motivating to students
and to generate "high-level" loaarnings.
Kinds of learning possible, ESP uses the simulation approach
in CAL over a wide range of subject-matters and topics. The
performance of some system or phenomenon - from an electricity
grid system to a nuclear reactor - is modelled, and the student's
manipulation of its parameters yields visible roasults on the
graphics terminal. To this extent, as one member puts it,
'all packages are trying to get students to look at data in a
new way'. Again, 'packages particularise from the general .••
and then expect students to generalise from the particular'.
In these senses, the simulation packages give students an
intuitive 'feel' for their models, to complement theoretical
formalisations of. the notions embodied. Such packages have
wide applicability.
- 357 -
 ,
.1 typical learniilg experience: Thed",signerof ,radiCJ?!-erials,
or antennae, iscdncsrnedwithcClmbinations of aerial qlSnlents
and the amplitude and phas<;r of driVing currents inth~trans­
mission (or:r:~cepti?n) ,of signals.> }'()r e:J(aIllple, and inlaym<lil's
terms, he may wish to concentrate 'tl'is ' radio' be'am emanatincr from
his translllitter, so ,as to' leave,t:il<:. i?'l'ae",iivel':'ll~thavan~le
for transmissions ,tel other directio~l1l' '~tu8ent(!1iJ.1 Ilreviously
have been 8:Jtposed'l;¢tllEl tlle0ri0fit"rialS1,;hrough lect;ttr':'s <Iild.
reading. Laboratorye<;tuipment\1ill be used to demonstrate the
practical aspects, butmf~ be H<>in.pered ?Ytll<:'nintlb<i:r: of.
'
combinatio~sp?ssible,iri aP7rio~, as ""d1'i-S by interference
from nearby Objects'lllbYaIieIlto:rl1!tat:rc. BUild~ng, UPo,n such'
learning, stud7 nt,s ,in the<:AJ;<. l<ili0ra,~6ry follow ,an ,exercise
sheet., Th'T iJ:lvestigate mall~ 11l0re<:;()tD.b:j.nations 'p(,tli. e ,para-
meters, 'an,a Sketch theca,+test<lil arid polar •plots of,Sach.'
Comparisons of.' dif,f",rerit de",ignij, f~;e ,ea,s:j.lyma1e, ;ari4 the
students cange~ a good • ~~el,' f()r 1:hewa~s in which factors
interac~ as theymoyetowarcj6 a satil1lfactcirydesign. ' 'erature'), and physics '(inclUding SchrOc:inger equation, satellite
- 358 -
, DP 1/09 COMPU;:ERS IN THE UNDERGMI:J'Ui1TE sciENCE CURJiICULuM
(CUSC:)'
(Uni\Ters1ty College London; Chelsea College Lonc1on,
University
',;
of sUrrey).
. '
" -,.', ","
Director: Dr " ' J. McKenzie, Department of Physics and'A$tronomy ,
University College London.
SUbject matters; Biology (topic areas include physiology
genetics and' ecology), Chemistry (inciuding '::istribution of
molecules in a gas, point symmetry operations, molecular
orbitals, relationship b"tween equilibrium constant and temp-
motion, Rutherford scattering, moments of inerti:a, statistical
mechanics). (Packages ,are also being developed ,in statistics).
Sector, Higher education. ,Packages are ~ed by first, ~econC;
arid third year students.
, Role of computer: Mostly simulation. Calculation and graph-
plotting facilities. One tutorial package. Many packages make
extensive use of graphics, some are ,teletype··basec,
116de of interaction,' Ihtera'1tive.
On:'linc/off-line, Significarit "learhings are expected to take
place on-line.
ciirriduitzni paradigm W'ith whiohtheroaterials 'are, most closely
associated: 'Revelatory. sonieare explicitly emancipatory,
reducing student labour ,in graph...plotti,ng, calculation, etc.
One instructional parauigm 't'iitc,r1alpackags. ' '
COrlt,·.rtsorl1se" PackageS are used by small groups students o.f
(st'ccatimeswitha tutor present), by inclvidu,Us, and in lecture-
de'Lonstrations. ,For Pllckages\lsedO\1tside lecture-demonstrations,
students,'hav~,'~upporti~$~_tud~ntguid~softeninciu(~ing
teacher~
set exercises ,usually the ,l?aCkageS are used following intro-
ductory theory lecturesithough 'sometimes vice versa. In general,
the packages enhance existing provision. Contexts of use thus
'vary quite widely from package to package.
- 359 -

Reputation of materials; Varies across the range of packages
produced. Some packages (e.g. Schr6dinger, point-symmetry
operations) are very highly regarded inside and outside the
Project; others are less well thought of. The Project rates
good pack'l-gesm9stly in t<a:t'l11s. of."richness" .anCl practicability
for locel1 curriculum contgxts (" integration" into curriculum) .
It is extremely difficult to generalise across the range and
diversity ,of. CU~C .pac~ages , . but. since,.all are. developed by
inter--institutionalco-operation, they.are .used (and often
enthusiastically welcomed) in a range of course contexts. One
c;~i tic:ism. of .the pUSC "style" of simu.lation packages is. that
tJ.,:ey may besubtiy persuasive, using In0dels \'thich are pot' always
explicit to the student and tending to teach concepts implicitly,
G,,~,,~ealillg somethinlj of tile problematic nature of, tile models
""nypresellt•.••. (Apparently this is espec:ialiy true of some of
(~le biology packGlges)
Ri3alJ.sa.t;iOlldf 1JOt~1l~ial' .'., I.~ ,woul.d P.r~bablYbetruet() say that
mqst packages haVe nowbe"'Ill.lsed. ~der .typical~9nditi9p~ and
that,givenad",qua.te integrati~rl int'? c:()u:rs", ccmtextsand
a.dequate computing facilities, the mater:tals are reaiising their
full potellti'l-l.'l\'Jaill, tiledi"ersity ()~l.lpplicl.lti9ns d<afiers
neat generalisation, but it is probablyt.rue, to"ay th'l-t the
user institutions have thoroughly assimilated CUSC-style CAL
illto a fi1.unber o~. <::ourses and that pac:k'l-ges ar,e being. used. with-
out serious impedim<ant.
Kinds of l""'lEning $ought, 'Stl1dent-ClIL:!.n.teractions are mostly
of Type D (global reconstructive or in,tuiti,,,e 1.\rlderstandillg),
though some packages emphas1se Type C (reconstructive under-
stanilingorp()mprel1ensi9n) "Th"tllt9rial packGlge entail.s s9me
Type B (recall) stUdent-CAL interactioris. The Type D inter-
actions are apparent (for example) when students are trying to
get a "feel" f9r.a In0ael or1.\rlderstan':litby manipulating its
realisation ill gF,aphical displays at the termillal.
F','c"aat1.ve evf.deIlceon stUdent: learning, .
n.' Tes.t Clata, pa,ta from course eX8ll\ination results is available,
' , ' l :i.tha~. n()tbeenformally analys"d•. Asel"ewhere, it is
:'-'" infeedl,ngteacher jUdgmli)nt•... 11anY CVSC packages have
""""1.iateCl studel1,t exercises whichc01'lt:ribute to, marks for
"c, '~i'",\~ork1. perfCi.rJ;nance on tilers'" exercis€lS apparentl.l' indicates
stud",nts are learning thr9ugh CAL. . . ,
(2) compute.r"'b~se<1 Clata, Records are kept()f use of packages,
some packages are associated with exercises which contribute to
class marks, so usage is high and the learning experiences are
taken seriously by students and teachers alike.
- 360 -
(3) JUdgment data: Teacher juaJIllents have been collected
informally though syst;"matically by the Project through
informal interviews, Project committees and the like. User
, satisfaction is' high, 'partly because teachers are involved
in the developments: saine packages generate mild controversy
about curriculum philosophy (e.g. concerning the educational
potential of simulations) but such controversies have lost,
their "he~t" over thE< l1'fe of the Project. Academic staff
invol·.rement in development and use of packages is high (69
staff'0ver the five major user institutions). Student
judgments have been collected formally (by questionnaire) and
informally (informal interviews, feedback to Project evalu-
ators) and' reveal' soine enthusiasm for CAL work in general.
Student judgment data has been used by the Project in redesign-
1ng draft packages. Some criticisms reniain~ but student
attitudes seem' generally favourable to CUsC-style CAL,
Outsider judgments come from potential users, audiences to
conference presentati0ns, NDPCAL site-visitors and the like.
The Project's internal and external transfer record suggests
that potential users evaluate at least some 20 of COSC's 30
or 'so packages'positively.
(4) Clinical I'lncilgses/close observl'ltion/etc.:' Partly because
of its systemat:i:c developmental use of evaluation data, the
Project has Diade extensive use of clos'e observation with
follow-up interviews. Much detailed data is available oli
packages. Of particular interest, perhaps, is' the evidence
that students using CUSC materials are involved in "checking
kn6\ol~edge·and·lll1p.e.r~t~dinC]'i t, ,; e*periDlen:titig~J, f: ,;lrea~orilpCf1I,1f
and "interpreting" through the student-CAL interactions made
available through the packages. These produce particular' ,
benefits for stUdents in "visualising" theoretical,concepts,
P1.':U:lCiples, models, etc. and in Ceveloping "intuitive under-
st.rl:nding" of the models.
l)(.:~';,G'"ement in student learning area, The Project can fairly
c,;"'C"J sUCCess in learnings related to Type D interactions (and
')'.:7"'''' B and C). The simulations seem motivating to stu<1ents
a,,': ';0 generate "high-level" learnings.
J: ':'" :".. ,;:t ,learning possible, CUSC has exploited the simulation
Cl\""J"_""~" ;c Cl~L over a wide range of subject-matters and topics.
E:;';' "'c' ;~",,'," ';1vely i;o.ll1ple mathematical models describe the per-
,o.~; . :.. ;",..""" (;f some G:~'3tem or phenomenon, where a small number of
,:" c.. '·,,,'.• U'.LJ can be manipulated to yield visible effects 011
9.': ".-,1 displays, where materials can be generated of
361 -
sufficient "richness" 'and ,where' the use of CUSC-style packages
can be i~tegrated,into course teaching and assessment, there
>V','''',
~ ).vi· C '1' L'[:
l- t~
will. be" a r?le foz: CAL simulations like, those produced by the
Pr?Ject. In short, where a model exists which can "distil"
the
understanding about "a', phenomenon and Where, pedagogical
problem is to give students an intuitive. feel for the model
DI' 1/04il C.r,XNIC>1.l~ D.E'CI810V MAKING (Gem'.)
to complement theore'iOical f0rIllalisation of the notions it
embodies, ,CUSC-sty'!e CAL may well be appropriate. As a
(Un:i.v'ersity of Gla.sgo..., and UniverEi'ty of: Leeds)
gener~lapproach ,to CAL, it has very wide applicability.
. Dizector; D~c. c. D. Forbes.. Department of Nedicine g Glasgrn'l
A typical, learning eX~~iei:tce" Two metallurgy students use
the point group synimetry operati'ons package as part of, an Royal Informary.
introduction to crystallography. They sit together at a
Subject matter: Medicine. Fou:t' kinds of CALpackages are under
graphics terminal following, suggestions 1mout operations t~
development in the GCDM Project a~d immediately related work,
perform from a student guide. starting from the initial
each using a different. kind of underlying model: (1) the case
position of a flag in a three-dimensional space, they rotate,
study model (also known as the "patient management" model) "
reflect and invert it by selecting from among available
(2) the time dependent model (<:lIsa known as the IleDlergency~~ or
options listed in the guide. They accumulate operations to
nemergency simulation~~ model) i (3) the inference model .. and
buildUp complex groups, comparing sets of operations as
('1) th'" conceptual diffez'entiation model. 110st GCDM units ha',e
suggested in the guide. As they go, they suggest options 'to
been produced using, the first two models. Materials have been
one another, follow their own "side routes" (deviating
from,the exercise to ,explore their own ideas), and formulate developed for hospital"orientated clinical woz'k (about eighteen
answers to key questions in the gUic~e -- they' will be case study units have belen developed" with topics including
discussing those later with their tutor and other students. lIaematemesis, Idiopathic Epilepsy, Cardiac "ailure And Arrythmia
Due to rf.lhyrotoxicosis i Carcinoma of Lung Q among some seven
They ptedic~ where th,e flag will end up before executing
each operatJ.on to t.ast their understanding of the operations emergency ~,its, topics include Road Traffic Accident, Self
Poisoning, Acute Myocardial Infarction) and for. general practice
themselves ~d ~egin 'to get a feel for ,the operations singly
and in combJ.natJ.On. At first they find inte:r:pretingsimple (about o,tenty case study units have been developed on topics
operations difficult; . later, they can predict their effects like Asthma - Child of Six, Lung Cancer, Backache, Angina,
fairly accurately. In this later stage, they find some of Carcinoma of Prostate,Coronary,Thrombosis).
the conibinationssuggested in the gUide more interesting.
Sector: University. The materials have been used with a range
One says of' the 'package, "It' s good for pepple who conceive
of things pictorially". ' of students across most of the three clinical years (last three
years of, five in the undergraduate course) • There has also Reen
some post-graduate use· of the materials a

RoJe of computez', Simulations emphasising guicled problem-'

solving; simulation games. 'l'he computer presentsinfonnation
(on request in the emergency simulations or in a predetermined
sequence of~decisionpoints inL~e patientmanag~ment case
studies) and the student makes decisions emout diagnosis or
treatment on the basis of the evidence available. ,Some use of
graphics facilities, mostly for graphical or tabular displays.

Ned", of, intel.·aot:ion: Interactive ..

- 362 - "" 363.,.

 On--,,'liner'cf:':t'·'.Li ne lec~,r':rl_(J.~'7:~' t-lost Si~;~LLf:i(!Q.P..i: lea:t'!2..'t r~g is expected
V..:o ta,j~:G F},'~,a''';'7l :::t,;:,"olmd :;}':,-: ~';.;:;';'~~ J.ine" d{.:l·,::::i..~:;,j..·:)n_ F0J.r:i'.:t-,
t.b,s :~ea;t':!J..:Lng 1,~,.;;;g2:~_(};::; F~")G:n the off-li:l,,;;1 dlSGus.s5 on
g:C(;t'!p;~~ of 4- - {) ~;d:::~[d':i:rrt8 "iI-t,O work. on th.:.;: rr:.dt.E:l:i.alc t:.oget:.her.
C1JT:r:.i(;~G].~?l'( rx:n::·3/1.i~m \"lL ti" -,,;i.:dch the ICaLex.i.a15 ay.:e most,
2.::.:;;',:-.c;:..:Ltttt?,c1~ }':s';:I:;<L,,1b:'-J:{,
C'Ci:.:':e,;;.;t c"t ;;',"30: ~:·t~'::: ;.:::;.J~::.s: (.'\::':'8 US'2<:~, 1.:.'l 0~.:'U~·f2 c"'f: stnde;()t.s: often
'i':':l.th a. to:i.:or preS8::i:t::. (.::.. s ~·~n lldditi0f'~:.:.1 J:'E:$0i."i.!.'C";'1 ;",(..!iJ./o:;:
q;;.'3,TU::'n.. c-;:?":'). OCCfl,;;'U~;jl:.a}:Ll' ~Tt:l.lc1ent8':'!:)i,:k Oi1 ,l:""'):U:S in-:l:"viC:ually
or :L:~ p':',:.:CIJ. They do not:. ~:(~place c");lven'l:ional clinical or
genex'al pr3ctice teai,"'!l,ir:.g but enhance it i1 offe2~ing students
si.. :~t2::;:,:;.t.ed.,~thands-bn~: ~~::;Kf'';31.'',~ .. enceof casias {(;t:·::..:·-:n, 'ba38'J. 'o:\l':,real
c-:';'G::)~·8C'.).!.:'Ct;). Tl:f:'~Y r!.iLJ?;"-:I~:\)-;j.:]e
deci.. ~~j,o"'.1~'·.r;.~::.ki,i;,~ p;""i:1, :"),~,- 'j ud'Jillent
aI,;dpr~().;'J:nt actior:" 1."?D:,1L..::.~~lsar·e l:'1'7u(f16,\~('-1.- 'i:n2 l:("'l~)(·..~tt'(;eroom
a·t oue" teaching ;hcsT.>:Lr.al.. i;:-;aCAL ;;;\:;~:r.vic~< ~~f~~J·,'),:;:i.:':1a.l Yoom, near
a:rlother,;a.~ldat'a Cjcr.. <2';:r~·c:J.p:r.·:ictice clinic'. I;(~G,"1USG .3t".ur.1ents
have V9XY :1~;"'i.Jl timf"d:;.":bI8:~~ .. '..!,::;age lz'e:~pectec.l \:'0 be~~~ghest.,in
lunCh"'hours -,,·coffee-b:.::e~':::d ~.:1d in thel;atd aft:e:i:D.OO!lS .. but'in
fact·'st.ude.!:'i.t.swill o:.E\:{-~H m;,:,> the: Cl~rt material~:. in };:.wture-time.
, Uni ts, are made availabJ.e: a.ro'UIlCl<the: .time of <eelevaat., special
topics., ,in t.~e ,course, t,hc~:~~;~i ideally t.hG sysi.:cr'".t Y'lould be
completely open:'sbali 1::n1:::5 would,be: availnbl(~ ntall times.
Reputation. of t.hematexiaL<;:, Generally hi:gh. Packages under
deveLopment are vetted.. by pa.!leLs of practi tio,1e:cs in reLevant
speciaLisms so· content is unLikeLTto bE) pa~'t.l.clllarLy contro-
versial. Some reservations' have been e"pressed on the peda-
gogicaL side about the mc:chinepresenting students with
formuLated options (rather t.'1an Leaving them to construe the
probLems), but the deveLopment of a facility to aLlow students
to formuLate their· own optionsseetls·tobe technicaL~y
,infeasibLe (giv",n thEi present state of the art and reLativeLy
fixed funding). At the timE> of writing, transfer of the
'materia~s beyond the cooperating institutions has been Limited.
Realisation of potentit,l, Given the underLying models and.
adequate computer support the case stUdy materiaLs 'are
reLativeLy easy ·to prepare (among the 10l~est initiaL deveLop-
ment times in the NationaL' Programme at LOhours ·for aclraft
of a patient management package). The <:liversityof materiaLs
heLps to introduce CAL across a ritnge of topics in a course
rather than in circumscribed areas. On the basis of the
Project's experience, it wouLd be fair to say that the materials
are rea~ising their potentiaL Host have been tried under
- 364 -
typicaL cOnditions o.fintegration into courses though some
f !lUi:. equally (e.g. the Road Accident eme;rgency simulation) have mostly been
:'.1.1 tJy-;; small used as. demonstrations of the potentiaL of CAL ~
Kinds . of learning SOl1,gOt., Student'-CAL interactions with the
r::losely units are mostLy of Type 0 (global reconstructive or intuitive
und",rstan.C!ing). They are concerned . with the .incuLcation. of
forms of action (and,toa •.LElsser extent, forms of thought)
as St;ude:nt:sparticipat<;:cin,the· Learning,. experiences provided
by the units.
Evaluativeeviden,qe about student learn,ing,
(L) Test data, The generaL practice case studies have been
sul:>jecteato an evaLuation of Learning .outcomes (using·. a
paper~and-J?enciLfonu of the packages as a test)" ResuLts of
speciaL. significance are, students in clinicaL years.exposed
to the units. perf9numore Like graduates of one year's standing
.th.andothllir coLLElagueswho have not used CAL (though this may
be due to "test-wiseness"); students improve their knowLedge
about desirabLe and undesirabLe courses of action (especiaLLy
.in. the area of most. undesirabLe courSE>S of action) ; and, there
is .gQod evidence of incidentaL Learning of content (e.g ; drug
<:!osages). Proj.E>ctpubLications are avai~abLE> giving detailed
results of evaLuation stu<:lies.
(2)· Compllt",r-bas",d data, Not a great deaL of computer-based
data is. avaiLabLe .onthese materiaLs. Usage data, gathered by
questionnail':e ·in,the.case of this Project, suggests that about
50% ofilie reLevant students took the opportunity to use the
CAL materiaLs at Least once.
(,3) Judgment dat.a, Teacher judgments have. been· coLLected
informaLly by the Project, and seemto.be positive; S.tudent
judgments have been coLlected. formaLly (by questionnaire) and
informaLLy, and. suggest that they find the materiaLs interesting
and usefuL out.sider judgments" coLlected frOm visitors,
NDPCALsite-visitorsand others, suggest that the materiaLs
are generaLly worthwhiLe, though some doubts remain about the
potency of. the materiaLs.for deveLoping cLinical judgment or
decisiQn~making skilLs. NevertheLess, outsiders agree that the
mere fact that students are exposed to decision~making as a·
topic, especiaLLy when it embraces the sociaL and psychoLogical
aspects of iLLness, is a positive feature of the GCDM Materia~s.
- 365 -
 (4) Clinical analyses/close obsez;vation/eta.: Interviewsand
observation of students at terminals provided formative·
evaluation data to feed development.. Though intensive .'
analyses of student activity have not been carried out, the
general findings suggest that the· optimum group size is4- 6
:;tudents, that the tutor.may be best actirig asa resource
rather than as a stimulus, forthegroUp(iri the latter case ,
the tutor may turn the Cl.L session· into a kind or expositorY
lecture), and that stU,dents can tiSe 'the 'materials relatively
easily and effectively. . disagreements when they feel that some course of action
Achievement in student.learning area, . The Project ,cari fairly
clai:a success in learning related to Type D interactions,
though "decision-making skill" 'is itself·adiffllse ability'so
claims of large increases in:general decision-making or· problem-
solving skill (Le. across clinical situations) must be treated
with caution. Exposure to and practice indecision-making..··
seem generally to be regarded as wortwhile but the Project
makes modest claims about the generalisability of thislearlling.
Kinds oflearnillg. [IOssible: The models underlying GCDM units
are best suited,to achieving learnings associated with TypeD
interactions. F'airly .substantial changes in .the materials
would be needed if learnings associated with other interaction
types were to be sought.
.A typical learning experience: TWo fourth-year 'medical students
use the general practice. case stUdy materials during their
general practice courSe. They go. to the terminal at· Woodside
Clinic during. lecture hours, missin"'a lecture' to do so.. They
c.'1oose to work through a unit on lung cancer. 'l'he machine' gives
them background information about the patient ood his family and
presents diagnosis or treatment options, perhapsfivedr six at
a time. .The students' rate each of theseoptioris from one':
(actions which must not, be done) to five (actions which mtist.be
done). After they rate all the optionS.in'a· set, the machine
gives them:feedback on the adequacy of their ratings, inviting
them to adjust. some or all of the ratings if they disagree\~ith
the experts.significantly. If their adjusted ratings are still
markedly different' from the apparent concemmsof expert
opinion, the mach1negives brief comments on the likely conse-
quencesof. their. actions. Forexample,la.te in the unit,' the
. students helve chosen to sedate tl1,&l patient's wife, ,since the
patient is likely to die the next da.y and she has been finding
it increasingly difficult to cope. The feedback points out
- 366 -
Some possible psychological cons~~uences of the decision,
suggesting that the wife may later feel that she "de.serted"
the husband in his last hours, and thus feel guilt which will
make it harder for her to cope with his death. The students
work through about twenty sets of options in the case,
receiving additional information about the case as it becomes
relev"nt. ,'1');lr0U/f"houtth",sessi"n,discussion between the two
studlilnts is animated: "they feel ple;"sed at agreeing with the
experts when they find that they do; theY voic~ thei;
advocat",dj)y,the exp",r,tsis unjllstgied; . ood they experience
a kind of shame '-eli even guilt '~:heri they see that some course
of actic>n they.ch()Ose caus",s "thEl.patiell.t" unneq~ssary or
even wan1.:Qnsuffering.They clearly identi,fy with the .
131 tuatiori presented i).1 t);le case, and enjoy t);le 0F.'portuni ty tc
make the kinds of choices they see generalpt:actitioners
making. (These oppcrtunities for learning from the conse·-
quences of their own actions must necessarily be limited in
the re~l situation, since they .cannot be allowed to pursue
dangerous courses o:t:"action withrealpa1.:ient~). At the end,
the two students note in particular that their prescription
of drug dosages.w"s dal1gero~ly i l1ept: .it will be ol)ly a year
or so untUthey are liCensed t() pr",sqribe drugsal.1d, t);ley
realise that they have a lot to learn. After about ·three-
quarters of an hour they draw. t:);le:~essiontoa close and
discuss it briefly with their tutor who has happened by. He
draws,t1;l""irattel1tiol1 to .oneorb-l0J?oint,; where they might
have J?roceeded diff~:rentlY.i1l1di1l1.s~e:r",.a query aboutt~hether
one particular course of .aqtion";,,s re"llYso undesirable --
perhaps that decis'ion w.,s in one of those grey areas of
fashion in treatment rather than a clearly dangerous action
.~bey hurry ,?ut of1:h"'t:0omto go 1:0 a lectln:e/ walk lJriskly
down the stairs, t);lroughth,e crow.d!d,,;ai ting room of the
clinic, and gut 9f, .the bUildin~. .
- 367 -
 PROFILE 7
DP l!03 "',"" COMPUTATJ:O'Nll.t PHYSrCSTEACfJINdI,ABORAToRY (CPTL)
(UniversitY' Of Surrey)
Subject matter: Physics'; 'numerical imalysis 'and dathe·.·'~
matics. Materials include about 25'simulation packages; 1;3
computational'aids; (e.g. linear least sqm:u'""q fit) I '8'
demonstration' games; , " '"
Sector, Higher Education. Materials are used by first,
second and third year undergraduate students, and g. Sc. students.
Role of computer, }lostly Simulation, via 10 VDUs. 'Data may
also be input via teletype and output via line printer.
Hade of interaction: Interactive.
On-line!off-liiielearning: "t~ith the, s:i..i!lulationpackages,
significant learnings are e~pected to take' place on-line f in
the problem'-solvingwork, significantiearnings may take place
off-line; '"
Curriculum Paradigm with ",hieh tlle,inaterials aremostclos",ly
associated, the simulation packages fall, ~7i thin the Revelatory
paradigm; the computational aid fucHitYpackagesare
Emancipatory, freeing students from either difficult calcul-
ations or tedious programming of necessary sub-routines in
their pr9blem-solving work, though the problem-solving work is
itself within the Conjectural paradigm.
Contexts of use, PaCkages are used by individual students in
the C£'TL, with a tutor or more often a demonstrator present.
Compulsory use relates more to Mathematics/Computational!
Numerical Analysis than to Physics i compulsory and other
timetabled use accounts for <:bout 6% of the student's
sCheduled contact time, and comes mainly in his first two
years; and timetabled time has tended to give way to free
use of the facility.
- 368 -
Reputation of materials Packages have all Jj~m specified by
individual 'teachers as part of their ,teaching preparation,
and vary in complexity. Some are aids to, speedy computation,
but most are simulations. In any case the> project is not
simply'the ,sum of its materials, seeing them as part of a
flexible facility to' hI? tapped by students in t mir problem-
solving we.·k. Package transfers have been made to many
institutions, in 1975/76 some 107 SGts of complete packages
and ;!9 sets of docume~tation' were sent' out, though the degree of
utiiisation is not known. '
Realisation ot Potential" Host packages have by now been used
under typical conditions, with, the,CPTL operating at'st\'l.ady
state for two full years. Both the materiills and the facility
itself s,oem to be well integrated into ,the teaching department.
Kinds of learning sought, The simulation packages are mostly
Type D (global reconstructive or intuitive understanding)
though somG tutori?!l packages seem closer to Type C
{reconstructive understanding or comprehension}. Students'
prpblem··solving use involves them oro with Type E (Constructive
uriderstanding), \<here their project work comGS closer to creative
research than to reconstructing rccaived knowledge.
E:valur:.tiv6 evidence on student learning;'
',. . . ,', " . . . ., ' , ' , . "C,
(1) Test data ,1'.sses$meni fests, associa,te4 '1fthtlle Mat;hC-
maticalc9mputing Numer;icalAnalysisl'lork,ind.l.cate significant
learning gain. !1any CPTL packages 'are assoCiate,d with exerFises
which may be assessed as plrt, of students' course work. Therf. is
soro,e.u",eofdata analysi!Jusing the c::cI!lP9ter,associatedw~th
experimental laboratory course work. 'Res,ults suggest that students.
arelearning1:hrqughCl,IL'
(2)COmputer ..baEfed,2Iata USage of each piJ.ckage is lllonitored
by. time-logs in the computer.'
(3) JUdgemf}llt dCli=aTea<:heFjudgemel1tS.llave.been .;:ollected
bOtllpy p~o~eCj; aridoutsicleeval.uator;s, for f9rmative purposes
and to asses;" tp?,CJ?T):.' S .i,!njfact,uP9I1 thedepartment: Some 70%
of .1:l)e25. 'teaching staff ,,'Ire i l1vol"ed '. ~li th ,the ,CP'i'L, , in
varyingd~gr;e",s; Fielden a,nd Pears()n •{1977} suggest th~t the
less ent.llusiastic Llemhers tend tobs f..hose",i th l:l.tt;lec:omputing
experience (who may not have used computers in theirCMn
research). Th'" unconverted may doubt t.llat the theory of physics
can be taught by computers, or may point to the additional
contact time for some staff, teachers involved
- 369 -
 talk more .of theJ?r[wtic." of physics, and the ability t? repeat
eXperiments quickly and Chea!?ly. ·.st!ld"lltjud~eIl,ts ~a1Tebeen A typical learning experience: A class of students is set an
collected . form~lly (by questionnaire) and inforxnally.(inf()rmal exercise as part of it.li.assessed coursework. (Individual or
interviews, the •project •. evaluatorin . a. demonstrator role) . and group ,~ork is acceptable). The problem concerns the radio-
reveal '. a general likingfo:r: CAL. work; .. Tliere •is som", ..ev.i.dence active decay of a chain of nuclei: . Giv",n 1:h:!:,e\"dif~er"nt
that the. CP'rLfacility mG\y~ttr~ct students j:()su:r:zoey 'and decay processes, students should atialyse' each of them over
eVidehcethat .their •computing eJl:perienceisincreasingly . time, to be able to specify their diff<;Jrenttyl?e". St1,ld"nts
relev.anf to their jobs UPOI) leaviIl,<J. Ii;Ih Chivers (1976) are given \;he choice of tackling the problem (a) by formal
points out thaecP'l'L students~re. ~,uS.ual in that they. f:\re mathematical manipulation of the fO:rmulae, sub,stij:uting.the.
not naive users of packages, and sugges~s. that their c()lljpqt:er resl?ective half-lives, (b) numerically, using the CPTL
experience makes them less tolerant of' 'packagesand more eager package RADTRA, (c) numerically, writing their own pr()<JraI?
to constructthe~rownprograms to solve. J?roblems. putsJdeJ;
judgmentseome froID. thos~' recEli"ing trciIl,sfers ofpack<wes, A student mayfirs'c differentiate the precesses through
audiences. to.·
exhibitions an.dccmferencesanq ...the . 16nglist of
visitors tothepreject.Besides J?ackage transfer, the
ana.lyt1.caFlXIethecls,butwiUl'robabiy jOiIl his more di.r~ct
fellows to checkhis:r:esultsbyusing the fulDTRA package.
project st:ress'es theiIilpo:rtance of "ideas" transfer: its. Calling Up the package, he (c~ Qhe). se),ects theapprr.'priate type of
record of activij:Y sugge$'b! thatbothtypes have progressed chain, enters the half-lives of the. nuclei, i>ndso~e ~ime
weil; ' . . . parameters, He th,m<obtains a tabulat.i.on and a plot: of the
decay precess against time. By experirlent, he. comes.to
(4) . Clinicalmlal~seslciose6bS'ei-;"at1.()n/1t<::.' .'C16!!,eob:3<3r.: recognise each type of decay·process. Finally, he orders
"ationMs been undertaken continuall!/in the CPT~,anc1,.t~ a nrintout of his numerical solution from the line-printer.
. facilitated .wlien the l?ro j ectevaluato actS .as de!ll0nstratci: to-accompimy his coursework submission•
7
Linked toqu"sticmnairesandinformal i terviews; !Such
observation can feed thepro'cessof'dourse l1 review.'
Achievement in student'learning-area, The Project can fclrly
claim .success 1.n learn.ing .rela.ted to Types C, D and E inter-
actibns. 'I'lle niate.rij'l.ls. ciIl,d theirintegrati0Il,.in~(} the. .'
·'.curriculum seem motivating 'to students, and to generate "high-
levei" learnings. . .. ' '.

K1.nds oi1earn1.ng iJoi;i;1.:6le~' CVTL usess:i.ilJ.\llaticm pacKages

bver a wi.de range of topics :tnl?J:iYsi.c~. '.... • '.' ." ' " '
with the aim of complementing analytical approaches' using
differential calculus by numerical methoqs using the iterative
power of eomputati.onal algorithms. In -<::0Dllllonwit.~othe~
scientific projects, therefore, the'CPTL uses simulation to
give "tudents an inttdtiy",":eel" .formodelsUI)~erlYing
·t;heoretical f()rmali$ation ·~f.c<)JJ)pl"X.systems or phenomena.
Withthe advG\ntageef !Studel1 tSk (}wledgei:\ble in Computing, it
l1
goes beyonCitheir "captiv,,:'rolesano, invor,res. them~nproject
work alld cour"." assignments ,~~e:r:e they may write .th~irqwn
P;()<J:r:aJns ,u~:i.n>tthe. packaS1~sor oJ:her computatiohal aids from
the P:r()<J:!:'am . library.'

- 370 - -, 371-'

DP 410) ~ll(;E!1i:N~ J?iS:f:SION-f1lJ.I(ING
(London'·' rlu;;;i.Il:e~s School)
Directot, Mr.!>: J • Boxer.,
Stibject:mat:t;e2':s; Th~l?rojec1: uses a variety of decision-
making, sim\ll",t4.0ns alld theseac(l?modate a DE;o-b;ief pack,ag"
whichJ?rovioe~ an analysis and fe"dbackof students' us;eof
selEic1;edooncepts Ciuring .their decision;'making ••. Thes~u."
lations,covel; :l.I:lClustrialrelationS;inc'lus;1;;.lalll1!lrketingano, ,
the '?Ilergy lildustry ,and, cap be ,'re... titleo ,to refer to '
spec~fic +l1uus1;ri!i!s; qrprocesses. ' '~he. feeClback methods
inClude at:;qo-person . 'Jame!'-IlCl' a}multi-J?erson group 'exercise,
both ,of which can ,invoiveal1ysiibject matter.
'c .._:. ..' . .' :.,.:. ," ·.•. _ ·L··._
'..
,
',_'
Sect:or, Higher and further <)oucati()n • The methods hayebeen
useo by Ol.ploma ano Mast",:r:'s students, ano' by post":exp<'irience
managers from a variety of functions.
Role of the computer: Mostly simulation, though the feeClback
of students' patterns of conceptual ciscri.J:nination is
straightforwaro oata processing.
Mode of interaction, l~()stly batch, though neeQing a fast 30-
minute turnrcund at the end of each simulation oecision round.
But the market mooel contained in each si.J:nulation may be interro-
gateo by stuoents or their teacher on-line, and all batch work
coulo be run by students if they are able ano willing to Use
terminals.
On-1ine/off-line learnings" Significant learnings are expected
to take place off·· line .
Curriculum paradigm with which the materials are most closely
associated, Conjectural. Some Instructional elements may
exist, in the subject matters of Marketing or Inoustrial
Relations, and a Revelatory component may be said to exist,
concerneo with interpersonal processes. But the main aim is
one of experient,:tal learning, an active understanding of the
s tuoents' and others' conceptual frameworks.
-372 -
Context:sofuse, The De-brief me~ods can standa.i6ne, a~d be
used for' individual and •group. anaiyses ofthEd~frame~l~4:"kS•..,hen
discussing a specific problem,,'. o.rtheY may be~sedwitl"lin ,~
mUlti,.periodbusin~SSgame/simulation.s~udent~us\lai1ywork
(MDM) , in Gmups of, about six. D\lratiO~extendfrolll. half adavto a
week, in courses as short as one week andets lonG 'as a Y~ar.
The methoCG may be accompaniedby~y 0:r: a~l pf}ecturi-'s ,,,ase
study, films, role playihg'exercises; CCTV or the'simulations.
Reputation Of materials: ~Ei.'J?roject'smethoos' are often ,seen
as novel arid intriguing, but are alsOabstr~ctano"<1ifficu+.¥
toccmpreheno''rhe simulati.onf> ~en;S?l'\TeS prenoll:"det?rpiilistic
in their operaticn;~d henceconfro.ntthe stUdent wi~ the
effects, ofMs own ,andoth.ers· Il.ctiviti()s, ratherth~
challen<jing, him, to underst<lnoa determiilif>tic: model but; "itl1but
neeQing to unoerstano other stud?ryts'\lI1derstanoings of it;
Such si.J:nula'tions mayfaHbet~een t:;qo stools, in that tl1?Y ",re
too behaviCurallY-O~ientedf?rtliose. teacilerf> of ,quantitativi-'
-,' .. ,,':,' ,,',, _ _ . • . ., methods usihg~usiness'games as .. 'a: j:each~rig d?vice; . and. ~.,¥
are' tootechhical' fori:h?Se' t,eachersof ,?~aliisa:~iollb()llaviour
who use role pla¥~119 as. 11 form of ,experielltlallearl:lillg. '
Generally, though, the simulations are seen as a p6~Terful fo=
of activity for stuoents - many management courses nowadays
incluoe. a bllsiness gameinf>ome form. The, De-bri",£f",edbacl>
methodSion the other hand.' "'~?ln?re m:yStifYillg to teachers'
and students, ano have yet to attr,"ctSl.lpport,
ReiUisat:i.811"· ofpot:.enti,iit.. '.' Th<'i isJ.miJiii tiOnEl,hilve been.useCioil
a variety ~f courses 'and appe~.r to be realisillg tJieirfl1l1
potential·as a'vehicie forconfrontirig the stuoent with' the
implications of. his own interpe~s()nal, p:r:ocesses. The, ~voweo,
aim o~atransparent sim~latioIl cou+d perhaps befurther.,dby
the p~~,visi()nofanotherint()irogativemoaE!l; tog:/'wi deciSion-
makei-~gUide.nce onthewage~bill implications ofvaricu.spayl
produc:tioIldealsthey might negotiate, thOugh time apd >
tenJlin<il cons traintS 'may in aI1j(case ..inhibit ~uch .transpar~IlCY•
SeconOly 'the project still sees the. nEieofCil:" a gen",rali"ed
simulation, which, dan be quicklY,C<.lnfigured to match any"
given structure ()f roles and units. 'flie De.-brief feec1hacJ:
methodshaverevealedlimitations £n Kelly's repertor.l. grid
analysesofconceptual'frameworks: ,or t.1tey.have shown th!'-t
those analyses' ar.ehopelessly" static. (and; in .the. simulation
setting, historic in thei.rreferring to a deCision periOd
, prior to thatwh,i.ch has justendeo).
Kinds of learning sought, IIlsCifarastheintel:J?erso!1al
negotiating carried out. in the sim'ulationsmay he treated as
- 373 -

beil1.g dip~ctly cOilchable,tp", leqrl1ings lIlay be, related to Type
"C (?ornpi~hel1sion!,andt?,~p.,D (inlouitive UIlder,stMding) <
',', B:ut 'the" ?spql:j~ed. qilJ;l o~" tl1e project i~ TypgE i ,1'lherethe, student
createsl'li~ q~n)ll()",iec1<:J," qt., hi~o",nc1ecisi()Il"'lIlakingworld, and
becOllles able t6,'lll1end ,tpisconceptl1al Stl:;uctl:jr", rapiqlywhen
interacting ~lith 'oth~r' decii3ion,..ma,kers,' . ' , ,
.... , ,',.' ; : ' , : :<: ,: >:-', . :,' ',:
,':,<', ',' ':""-',- .... ....
E,jalull~i;;<i evid~nce on studehtlearning,
, (1)'i!es ta.9 ta;Qn one 14,1?Q90uJ:'se (n,,, 32Ltl1el?rojeqt~s
methods. ,.ere ,useCJ. illa.ni~dustria;Lrelations option, ,and written
as'1'igl1l1lentS,~re,<l,vai:l.,<1?l",~,th0ugl'lth"'Yhav"" not, !.>eeIl.fQ:onally
analys",ci<, A,Smi,\l1 e.xI,>ertmelltwai3rnounte<1 Wit!', paio.volUllteers
using ·the.De·:briel:' packag,e a19ne, and this "e,learninestheir scores
iIt,tl'lcr-:,>ersongi!lllleS I'Ihe.:r~iil they:interrog\lte/ e,a,ch other',;;
conoeptsl.l.pd prefet"ncesop. ajointly chosen> topic; Thirllly,
a. qi+e~~iqnnairefprm(,fE;<=l1Y' s,reper~ory grid was adrllini!3 t ered
befo;r:?, a.ndaft"er ~apCl,1:he~"'tl'l? Jrl0nthS' after , . a one-week,
residen,!:ialcourse 'fp:r:pJ,lbti9 scc,!:0:r, stl:jdel1~' 011'1-, Diplomi'l, in
MaJ;l<l,"'~<ani;:1?tucJi?~.90urse (p"],l?), .,sYllle ,~hift~ ,iIl9ognitive
complex.i t:i,I.l.S mea.silr",CJ.py/.tl1eins,!:;urnellt aJ:'e revealed, thou<;j'h
scores'moved in :path 4irections, a.n<t t.'1e;rewag l1oa(!gregate
chang~. '. ',", "
',,',<:':,:):,:-)-'-,-::C' ':::',;'", "i:,i<-", ';',.:',_,;,
(2) 9911lPqtfJx-ba.sed <1"!t;¢l "< l!'l:jl~/,rec?;~ a;", kepj;.o:fall, useqf
both simulations <lllpt:l1,e, :l:ee9!?ackpiickage. ," It;, isdiffioult to
relate such statistids'to forms of student learning, since
ther".a.j;esQ maIlJr.,ipteraqHpgva.:riabl?S, ':Pllt th"r"Sor9s '" do,
allow reconstructionso(MYC?u,rge to be maq", and thi!3.is
es!,,,Ci<l,H¥ i:LIUlll~ri.a'!:ipgl~qel1 9C'J:.v.reC9r<:'ling~ar.e available.<
(3) , ' o1'ud~~nt"<1ati2.' feaah~r' juqginenj;s ,ar",S,carce, '. as th"
P%'oject·ha.s,fpr moste"f its life!:>e~n;esppnsible for,i:ile
'teachingqf its pwnm<l,te;iais ,'tiire", ,teqqhers have .~iorked
with the methods ,\:)ut nOlle has yet ol?erated them wi1;hotj,!:
SUPP?;~frpmt.he p%'C>jeqt. '.C<?uI;~e .,..&iu.nis,!:Z"~tors?,r;' Dlore
likely. t;qaccEll?t ,. thesimu:I.a,1;1qns, a.\ldthePr?ject,llaswOJ:ked
on'tw6,,90uJ:se,S at· the,Londo!:\ Business scn,opl:fc,rove%". t;"fq years,
involving eightormoreins1;anc;es 8n,
ea,cl1coU:t;se,o?t.tjdent
jUd9'lIlents have):>een,,,ollec:ted,f0rlJlally. (!.>YqU€lstiol1na,;ire) .• anq.
inf0l:Illally • (r01." playing, inf.oi;mal interv;i",ws ,observation ,via
CorV)~, The simulations ar.egenerally.highly mot;ivating ..
though the SpGial;Presspresarehi-gh .. anClthe hi9l'l ,level ,of
activity gives good opportunities ,for "negotiating practice , ,and
hence a great:er relevance 'of any learnings to the students'
managerial ..1iy",s.'I'heDe..brieffeedback lUethPds, on the other
hand, "fhilst theygiVeusef)lltilJ;le fprr;eflection on the,il1 ter-
personal processes', .a're more"often seen as' perplexing, and
reactions are sometimes hostile. Outsider judgments come
- 374 -
•
primarily fromi:ilo~e;inill!3titutionswhichare considering the
us,e of the methods, >':I'he methods have been demonstrqted on the
courses of several larg",organisations,qnd the Project's
rhetoric (or the cach;'toftl1e,LOndon J;3usines!3 School) seetllS
to appeal; but no oU~i<'ieOrganisationhas yet made a repeat
.
purchase, tl1e most desired response in tl1e management milieu •
Clinic",l anal11se~/closeObseI1fation etc", 'l'heProjecthqs
dev?teda greatdealofei:f9rt to sha<i01'l studies, fOJ:,bQtl1
fo:onative andsummative, pl:lJ:'Poses, and fqcus!3ingonboth teqcher
and stuq",nts roles in using its methods. Evaluators have
talten ,both teacher and, student roles " an,d ha"e used tqp",., and
CCTV recordings as, well as photography. These methods have
helped in reconstructing the learning eXperiellCe,and illu-
strating the methods to interested audiences.
Achievement Ln the student learning area, The Projeot' can
fairly claim to have produced a family of decision-malting
simulations which gives, full play to interpersonal processes,
and hence provides learnings of Types C and D. As to
learnings related to Type Einteractions,the Project now
accepts that its computerised repertory grid feedback methods
are inadequate, They are incapable of, revealing the dynamics
of interpersonal processes, and can only act as a 'trigger for
the teacher's process-interventions., The Project hopes to
develop more powerful-methods based on analyses of different
components of conceptual structures <
Kinds ox' ,learning, possible, ' In acting'their simulation roles,
students gain valuable learnings in two areas, (a) in
tackling ,life-like, ,problems' or ordering" their, priori ~es and
mastering complex illformation in a short period of time;
(b) in deriving" and amending a strategy for negotiating, and
an awareness of tactics, therein. J\ third arBa, the Type E
activity of continually reconstructing conceptual frame'dorks -
both his own and his perceptions of others' - is the most
novel and-..E'.xciting, , ' but has not yet beel'l realised.
A tgpJcal learning, experJence: A group. of managers,
numbering from 12 to 50, is assigned to roles in simulated
companies in an industrial ,market. , Some companies sell ,and
others buy, each in competition with, other companies.
SeveraLrolas, are, structured- within each 'company unit.., Results
of each periods' activi ty are computed, with comparative
indices '. produceo. ,tor each, player <, Ccrvwillprobably be
used, to show how players' tactics ,and strategies - and
-375 - .
 ,

perceptions of the others' - are interlinked. (Students will PROFILE 9

alreiidyha'l'e been introduced to the >ariiilysiS ofconci~ptual
'frameworks, 'using a ·simplepenci.l-,and-papermethod,or a tWo-
person game; . and they may haveMld ii"m~ll group policY
discussion on a topic;) The feedbaClt system' is introduced DF 1/07 MATHEMllTICS r;JlJJOAATORY PROJECT (MIlTIJlB)
for, One .ortwoperiodS,andconsistsofa group of players'
stating their own positions on several dimensions (which may (Napier College, Paisley Colle']e, Falkirk. College)
have been defined by the teacher or may be chosen and
explained by the .student) . Eachp~ayerthen estimates every Director, Mr. Donald Leach, l'lapie~ College of Commerce and
otherm6inber of the group. Acbrnpu~eraIlalYf?iSiSprovided Technology, ECinburgh.
at a later· period," and their misperceptions' show studEmts
that'theU'worlc1Sare' nottiriariimous;If :enough practice is Subject matter, Service mathematics.
possible, stUdents should learn to reveal (orconceal?)'their
own rrameworks better,' arid tornal" the:J.l: dolleagllesbetter too . Sector: Furth~i~11<lltJgJlffon (has been used wi til somB ,~,econdary
school pupils in addition to FE use) .

Fi01e qftl1ecomput'er, Provides calculational , curve~plotting

flIld 0t.herf<lcilities in topic areas of nUllleric<ll routi,nes, .
matrices, .apd statistics. Uses teletype terminals •

Mode o:f,i.nteraction, Interactive.

On-lin~/o.f:f-ll.ne learning, Significant learnings are eXJ?e9ted

to take place, off"line ·,.'1 Sj:udl~M:;ss L1q,elt:i"rC5blialllS:'bSll:c~~"iasing
tile', computer i th.en. use ti,e values or data thus generated in me
fina1."fi)t rtges::qf p:rOble~~Qlving~
5l,lrricl,llum para~igmwith which tllematerialsare most closely
associated"., E;IDaI\cipatory ~ .• f;';eeing. "tudents fr()ID the. ~!lauthentic
labour o.fc<llc\f:LCl.1:iOil' etc. ,and alloi"iil'l empha"is. to be placed
on th", iIlt",rpret;ati.pn, validation and q,Pl?licatiPIl>of numerical
or graph~cal ;es\jlts.. In the curr~c\flumphilpsoph:yattending
the.l~at.hemat~cs Labcratory(!fJ1:lTLAB ). innpvation, .the .911rriclllUIJl
pq.raCigm i".rev."latory but; the fq,cilitycan,be used without; the
=.l:'iCllltllllPhiloscphy (t.h0ugh the Project's ideal is that the
two will be used toiJether) • ". . .

Context of use: 1-1ATLAB is used..b:y s tU('ients in a conte~t; pf

problem-solving. It is used to support teaching and learning
in s;er"i<:;emath.emat~cs by takiilgthe drudgery out of c<llculation.
T1lo\jgh s;tlldents."'.l:'e si;:illexpect,ed tolear!lmathematic<ll
techniques (e,.g • fOJ':iiltegrl1tionl, th",machine is used to
performcalcl1laj::ions,etc.,.sostud",nt:" can direct ,theirattention
tpmatl1ematical mpoelling ,yalidation.of solutions,. and .inter-
J?J':et:atipn. .The facili tyalsomakes i tJ?()ssible for students
to use life-like. data (ratheJ': than artificially simplified data)
in solving practical problems. Students usiIlg MATLAB do. so in
lecture or problem-solVing classes, leaving the teaching room
to go, to a,tertllinal to Perform the calculations. Ml'.Tl:JIB is also
used,i.n lecture~demonstrationsby teachers.
- 376 -

- 377 -

Reputation of materials, M..'l,TLAB .has not been widely-publicised
(the Project is waiting until a well-polished version can be
disseminated). It is difficult to generalise about its
reputation because th" . f.acilit:Yi.ts"lf. is . r"latiyely unc:ontro-
versia1; if' anything, . the· curriculUlll .approaCh· is the contro-
versial aspect (cri~ics f"arthatstll~"lltsmi\;h~be "d,," ...•.
skilled" in terms· of teChnique). .Many mathematics teachers
find the .id"a"f al'.ATLAB-style mattlfJlllatic:al laboratQ~
attractive sim.t>ly because it is elrlancipa,t9~•. ·
.., , .,
Realisation of potential: .. MAT~ is only just beginning t.9
operate "at full strength", as i t ~!ere:the Project has been
hampered by. technical problems (gett,l.ng its M()dular 1
computer to operate efficiently in what appears to bean9vel
way for this type of machiiIe-- though· the manufacturers insist
that it has always be.en technically feasible), and by cOl1Se9uent
loss of .siaff enthllsiasm (caused by failures wi ttl the machine ,
the long wait f()r a reliable se."tVice, etc.). Thes€limpe~ents
may take a little while to overcome, but the Proj ect hopes' that
the facility can now be used in its curriculum context•. On the
basis of Project experiElnce to date, it sElems· thatthemaiIl
barrier to succe.sswith ~ll\'.rLAB is desi",n of edllcat:ional
experiences away from the comPllter;· building. "'. curriclllum
context into which the faCilitll will fit "naturally".
Kinds of learning sought, Thesedepelld Veryinucnon th"specific
context inwhichMATL..Z\13 is used. On experieflCe to date, .1:he
empha~isin. stud"lIt-corttent interact.ionshasbeenon. TypElC
(reco~st~uctiva under~tanding0J": comprehel).si~n),•':l:ype D. (sllbbal
reccmstruCtive or intuitive. tinderstaIlding) and;p"rha,ps ,Type E
(const~ct:i,veund"rstanding) '. '.I'hese kinas ()fint(l:ractionsmay
be e:Kpe~tec1when~tudents are invol""d in int,,~pretingdata,
USing.results,tryi~gmOd"l~;•cempari,ngmod"ls ,anC! j:lle li,~e.
·Tlle emphasis is'probabiy on Type D inte:ractions·withmathe~
matical principles and models. ..
EVi'iluiiltive evidence0I! stUdent learning i
(1) Test data, EVidence is llv<liiableotl the'l?e#dl:n1<U1CEl. bf
UATLAB ~tudeIlt:s in examinations ,but it h~s notse<.<med relevant
t? makeri9()rous analy~es .ofthis datasi~ce,.f()~ .~he most •. part,
MATLAB has c~lYbeen used in parts of courses; not j'etinany
thorollgh-going ",ay • 'One !'~'TIJIB-.orientedexaminatio~ha~ been
aesignedand used,. but turned out to be diffici,tlt .for stUdents
asitwasb0t:hl'lnunustial format and difficult to organise
access to· termiilals. . ..
(2) ·Comptiter:..based data: . Since themainlearl'ling is off-
line, the Proj ect • 13 computer records (ofco!ninaridsexecuted)
are only useful for triangulating with student work, not for
drawing inferences about learning.
- 378 -
(3) Judgment data: Teacher judgments have been collected by
the Project throUgh informal discussions,. wor~shpl?s,.. m"Eltings
and the like. Systematic records havEl been k"pt fOll()wiflg each
Ml"TLAB· sesSion·.. (inusei" feeClback form 15 ···and Project·~i'lr~es) .•
Theseelllphasise the relative unreliability of .ttl1a.· sy~tfJlll (to
be expected during the uncertaindevelopmellt p~ase)an.:l have
• included suggElstionsabout improvements inthefacilit¥.
Teachers find it requires. careful plannin9tobllHd ~'.I'Ll\B
USe into problem-solving or lecture sessions , part~c:ularl¥ if
queuing lstobe avoided (it isdifflcult toa'l()~dbottlenecks
in organising student access totlle re~ati""ly "sci'lrc:e"
tenninals) •. MA'l'LAB .also requiressOmeadjuStmentollttl~
teaching side iflllathematical modelling'andthEl likeCire tQ
be emphasised. BE<caUSeofthe "tee1:hing tr0ubles".~()r •....
potential sers , i t i s not surprising. to .find'thats()me. ,.
ll
teachers have negative attitudes to the .system ,bur thelJroject
canalsopointtomanysuccess:EulMA·rL..~ classes on ",hi<ili •
teacher·· response has been' posi tive. Students ' j u~(JlUents .0£
lILl\TLAB hav"been collected formally (t.'1rough se!llantic .differ-
entia1 .andquestionnair" instrUIaents) and informalll'byl?~~ject
staff and teachers • StUdents '. reactions~emixed .and sQme:-
what perplexing·. (see ... '.; .(4,) ,. '. .. belo~ for further c~rrJ111ents).
AP.t>arently students ar" positivelyinclinad to Ml<TLAB in giving
them experience with a computer, and are support~v~ of th"'.
development. But they also admltthat they ·."d~1l 't. learn from
MATLAB". At one level ,that is to be expected, by itself
MATLAB is not intendadtCl teach; but the response also
suggests that stlld"mts are unclear about how MATJ:..'Ul is intended
tdhel)?in .the learning process. Outsider jUdgments have been
}collected byth" Project from feedback. on workshops f0J": .
potential us~rs,conf.erence presentations, .IIMlnspect0J":i'lte,
NDPCALSite-vis!tors and the like; These suggest that the
curriculum idea which inspires MAT finds wide ~uppo:rt among
LAB
thos1a'concerned with 'service mathematics teaching in further
education, and that the facility is a llseful t()()l for .....
establishing a "laboratory" approach t() mathematics.. There is
some concern· inside· and outside t11e Project that· employers
will feel that technique is under"emph~ised inbll\TLAB-style
mathematics teaching, but employers are divide.d on the ne"d
fors1<:i11 in technique. Given the Project· s concern that
students must still le~rn teahniques but practice them in
practical problems using ~ll\TU>l3,there is little reason t~.
believe that students who use Ml<TLf>a extensivel¥.~ill be (us-
advantaged in €>lllployment terms. There is some feeling that
~~,TLAB may be simply a supercalculator and replaceablEl in the
not-too-distant future by programmable machines commercially
available.
- 379-

(4) ..• ¢i1l1i8C1~Clil;'lly,."SI9,lO$" gbsorrr.~i;.:i9nIGitc,; . Th~?roject
ev!':j.·\l&ti81'l ~~<lIll h<l~ .c'?;!'.l"cte<J,figr",,,,,t d"''''1.of cla1ilsroom
. 8l>~'fITClU()il,~ti'.\,c<lr~i,e40u1:..!!l.aI)Y, il1.J:orm",1. st\lQ,entinterviews
w~ tl,l. $, t\ls+e;'lFs a:t; j;l1e ti,U;S' ·they arEl, \lS;Ln9 .!'lATLAB, Md made
.' c:;t()sE!' iCln':l1.¥~EJs ()~~j;,U9EJI)tw()r~. .r.eprll;Lng .to\lSe ~TLAB turns
out t8bE!;;t.n9n:'t~ivi,a.l,,~,,~cisefor m01iltstudents ,(many ,are
comP'fj::er~tjti,'V;ei'l.nq~'J.'~lIlg1,P.. 1:h,ei,r•Jirst "l1ande;.,on'·..
.contilcj::·,.,i,til. ,a c:9mpjlj:"r) ..Addedtoj"J1i$.,.,queuing.time:and
.d"'t"':"'B~:r;r,ti,iDe can, i,ml?ede.tl:l,,,, :r;:!,9W:of, st\ldent MO:t'It, so. that
doing.r~CI;ti,sti,().")(ampl,,s, Il"in,g 1¥>'r:I.1'.B cantq.J;.e ,,,,e;longas, •
doing si,!!lP;t!"'l:' ex"rc:i,s"!lPY )l,anCl' or wi,1:h, the help, ofLa
calcu;taJior. ,Stud"p,t!l""O!1'EJti!!le", i'l.ppeal:',tgthink. that, :'getting
the answer", fr~.th"C?lUl't1t:er;is 1:h,e, ",m'Lof tll,e1,,,,al:'!ling
eXl'erience;it.is <1;lfficlllt to,orgMi!le conditi,qns under" '
.which .t:hey. ,and 'j:hei,r.,t:eaffiers.Sal}, c:il-Pi,til-li,!l.e .0n,1:h,e',.I1l''J.'LAB .'
cUf~i C:1l1 l,llll phi,l0iloPhY" (ip,voll1ing inte:l:"pl:'".tatign, Illa1:h,,,matic:al
model;ting, etc~J. What ~'J:'LABs\lggestsj:o the . student. of CAL
iril}Ovaj:i,Ol'li,s that ,the curric:,ulumil1Bqvaj:i,on ~ff":linei,l;.as
"riti,?at (if not mor" cri,t.1.C:Cllj 1:h,anthEJw.TIJil.l3facility: .
9~9anJ.~i,ng COBditiOBs fprs\lcc"ssfu1.,use .of ,~lJ\TL,AB dEJDlMqs
ma:)?r chi;>pg"s iBap'\?l:'0",:ches to !lervice ma1:h,emat;iqs ,teac!l,~ng.
(Thi.~ does pot h0;t<fl:t:,?r ;lec:t~", ..Clamonl;1=:ratio1'l!lusing MATLli\3>.
. Achi.ev~'melltj.~~'t~df3Pt. , i~~~Tji~~ ~~~~} .' ;jhilethe.Prqj eqt .can
cli'lilUsollle s l'!CC:!"S.S ,An ac:h~",vi.p,g1:h,EJ l",al:'ningl;,ia$iloci,at",dwith
the s~'!<'l",nt'7C:()!lt",nti.nterac1:.i9Psfaqi:Li,ti'l.tedbyMATLl'.B".,
",xp",rie,ncF'todaj;,,,, doe!l notl?ermi tan. unequivocal ju4gtJl,entof
suq<:!",~s, ,~e, !l¥s1;8/llha,s. now .ileEJ!1,Z'eVi.seCi, ,<,U},d;i& Illororei~able,
so mo~e ~e:Li,<>plee~timatesofi,i:$acliiev<imlenl;. will bemaCle~n
thep,ext. f'1'1months. oJ: . apP1.icqtion~ •(t!i.e,begi!1I)ip.gof:the.,
1977~a i'lcac1EJ!!licye'l,l::), Thei'lchiev<imleI)tsoJ:~1ATLAB, "1'';'11", .of
course, .,R", mea!l~e4.not . i,n '., :terms pf .thet:acility itse1,~,.but
1:h,<e,.,aY t;eacl~,";rs,anqst,uq",nj;,s U!1ei,t in q:t:~..lin",.. ),,,,,,rnipg ,
lfiTj(J$ Oflear;TjiTjrJ1JO~Sibl""P~t:Ucll+tto",ssess.gi,ven1:h,at:
wl1at i,.,],e",rn"'<i dep«;nds; nqt s9 rHush onMATLAI3.aspn1:h,eway it
~s, .used ini ts teil-c:h~n\l-learll;i.i1g con,teXt, , It wouidl?roilal:lly
ile'!laf", to sayt:.\at the most.+i,ltely·lt~nqil'p~,learning,."
achievable.\tSing MA7JL~ ini,tsc~riculumsonteXtwill be
"hi\lh.,level" l,,~nings (e ,g . C\bout intel:'Pl::'1tation, al?pli,.
c<>p,qi.:tY o,fllla.tll<imlaj:i,cal,models), rather than basic "f",cts"
(thoughtlles".lIIill,undoubi:ed;Lyb", le""J:4ed as. a siq,,':effect
()f1lS~B\l,I¥>':t'LAB),"
- 380 -
J
A typical lea.rning experience1 ,Five students in a day-
release cluss (fer whom mathematics is a non-examinable
subject) are in the terminal room with their teacher. He
. hUs provided tutorial sheets telling th<em exactly what to
type in working .on proj;)lems, They arr.>.;usingnfunericals to
find the stationa:t:y values of a function by plotting graphs
and findin':r maximum and minimum turning points .'Next week
they will do the same thing using calculus.. These students
report ,thiOit,they hil-veenjoygd IIJATLAB more than anything else
cn theirco~se" After theY,arrivei the teacher gives them
t.'1e tutorial sheet and explains the exercise. Theyhave
forgotten how to log on to U,e machine qud several other
aspects of typin;; to. useJ1Jl,'1'LAB. 'I'hey.ara slow in typing
but don',t makelJlany mistakes once th"yget back into the
swing 0:t::11ll:Ln<;;<the sy",teIll' I!'ro!!l tim"" to tim<¥ , the teacher
comments on printout received; he makes comments like
"Then"xtgr,aph will, s.ho", the. values. more .accurately". One
student,finisll"Sthe tuto.rial. sheet in just. over 20 minutes,
and the teacher help", ,him. to diff<i!rentiate the function'
leading him into next week's work. By the time the session
,i.~",;over" f.ll~,,~3YE:! 'rnoV~d,':on to: the, "diff,erentiation, 'with "the
teacher givingindividna1, .help. Ona student' has nearly
finished the problem. While he is waiting, tlle teacher
exp],qi,n!l' "It's..whe",e the graph clltsthe X-axis ....... t:.'lat's
what you're looking for!" The student looks at the graph:
lilt I S a.. g~aph 9:f~h.? 9-,:r,ad,i:_ent:~I:, he: exclaims'. tiof course:i',!
t.'1e teacher rGplies , "That's what you said before. lqhatdid
you think it was:" In spite of protestations that he knew
what he, was doing all ",1,ong, the student has suddenly seen
th", l;ignifiqance of'the exercise, tlwpenny has dropped.
(As the }'roject evaluator notes, th:Ls :Ls a "happy" endingi
withl1l'T:r.AB as with ",lmost ",11 exercises students do, it is
possible for students to "make it through" to a solution
without seeing any deep s:Lgni,ficancein.. i;;'le result. c'olloldng
the "cookboolt" of inst:l;\lOtions anqteacher cues, the solution
maY'lUoan only that:1:h,,,, problem hasgone.away:,~ there is
nothing left toAo).,·
NOTE$
1 Based ollE} ,~ri9ht (PI-ojecteval:tiatcr): iOMA'l"'LAB t: A
CJ.assrcOm Ili.ll.Cvatio1'l" ;iY. report for the Project's
Final Review 11eeting ,'I'lay 12, 1977.
- 381 -
 .,
PROFILE
DP 2/05 . THELOCllLHISTORY· CLllSSROOMPROJECT ,. (LIiCPt'·
Mr;. B. D. C. L'abbett/Ceritre <.f6rApplied Reselirch
Di."H;i.;;;:: :
in "'.':i"q,tion, , University of EaS't'AIitrl1a/ '(Formerl:\Tof .
Sv:'.felk, l.e.a.):.
Sub),,,,t matte:t:·,r;""alhistor'.!. Focuss'es on the use of
eV.L}f~"£iCe,>in,wxi ~,:5.;~7J', history i::, ,involves-the-:use'. of,prim.~iY'·
sou'>:;e materiaL" (especially. a .cen'sus, ·returnsdata baseY.
Sect.,)]:: !'Iostly secondary; schools.'· Has been tiSediHth i iiiidd1:e,
ane' 'i;lpper schools, though there'has been· occasional USe by
pr:'.c\m:y, ;schools· and aaulteducation groups',·, ''
Rolv, (iI .computer: Informationretrieva.lin ·res'ponse 'to i3tudent
int"';,rogation of, the data base., TabulatioIi of data.
Mode OI. interaction,' Batch (turnarounc1, titile·one week or less).
On-linc/off..line learnihg:The significant lsarnings:are'
expecte,<:j,c l:O take, place:, off,.line,
Curriculumparadigm.,withlqhich tJH3 materials areinost Closely
associated" Emancipatory, :reducing the tediUm of·collation or
data from census ,returns; associated<with· a'conje'ctural
paradigm in the use of the materials away from the cOmputer'.
Context. of use: The census returns data is used in conjiiliction
with individlial or .sl1lall group prbject . work ,: .' often iIi' the
context, of "case studies"'~Jhich;poseqliesti()ns· o f historical
interest. Teacher acts as a resource and guide,. Thoughthe
Project's style of work will often replace conventional
~rovision in secondary school histo;'Y for several lessons, it
1.S perhaps best thought of an enhancement of existing provision.
Considerable support materials are required, LOCi\l tithe lIlaps;
literary and historical source materials, structured case
studies whi()~P?se histofic\'ll probleJlis, etc. ,Preparation of
these cur:ricttl<llC P1"i:eri,als.isa substan,tiale;><erci",e. .To
ensure a satisfactory seryic~ Support expertise is ne El dec1to
frame the inquiries for the machilie (the Project uses ICL-FIND
softw<lre, t . .lOugh other sys'tems could be used) •
- 382 -
Reputation .of materials, The materials are well thought of
by teachers already interested in the use.of local history
primary source materials and adopting' inquiry learning appro,,"chEos.
There is .a divergellce of opinion about the Project' s curriculum
philosophy (is i!lqutry learning appropriate?) and about its
philosophyof history ("uuderstanding history from within" -- a
collingwoorlianapp;,oa.ch). Opinions also differ .about the value
of a comparative data base which would allow stude.nts to
C<?m1?~re,inqu~ries in, 'one census ,unit with fu'1.other (~.g. a coastal
town with a rural village) -- those arguing for the comparative
use of the data base emphasise the USe of inquiries in inducing
p~t~~~~l ~en~r~li~a~i?~stested,inothercontexts. The
materi~ls are not particularlywidely-knOlqnl they have been
used "xtensivelyby a small number of. "trial" schools in
SuffolkiIDdby ~few other schools with whom personal contact
has been Dlade by the Project. (Another centre for development
in this area is Clwyd,originally associated with the Suffolk
Project but later an independEmt agency -- ChJyd has adopted a
somelqhili: different curriculum approach). The approach of the
Project has far-reaching implications for the teaching of
histoiy it adopted in a thorough-:going way.
Realisation of potenti,)l; Greatest success with the materials
has been achieved in "l~riting History Workshops" sponsored by
th~,~roj~c~and'i.Il:some,?lC\ssx:oom\tlork~~ain b arriers to success
include the substantial effort rGquired to amass source
m~te:t.'ial; ,de~~gn "case, s,tudiesf'( a l1c implement. the, ne~l"yiew of
history teaching implied for what the Project would regard as
~'id~?J+I, util~sa.ti()Xl., Ascess ,t?, .computing _,' ,resource~ . . anc. expertise
is also~ssentialfor schools users, and is difficult to
organise for the neophyte. The materials must be "recreated"
for each user site, though development of a network of data
basesJor comparative use could make som", economies of scale
possible:-
Kind,,! .0£ leaming sought: "Student,.Cl\L" interactions (really
studerit-d<lta interactions) are mostly Type E (constructive
understanding) •. 'I'Ype E interactions in the Project are evident
in "writing history", drawing ,new i!lfer~nces en the basis of
data generated by student interrogation of the data base, and
in recognising limitat~ons on valid inferences given the data.
Evaluatiye evidence on student lea~'ning,
(1) Testda.ta, Some data is available from course examiMtions,
and from O-level and A-level project work in history. This
- 383 -
data has not been analysed in anY syst atic way, -~ it is
eIl1 of student learning
referred to by those jUdging the quality
in the Project; however.
(2) Computer:"based data: Records are kEjpt of numb e ,r6f
inCiuiries, though these ~re not particularly useful in drawing
inferences about st:udent leaming. ,S~udents recEjive printouts
with tabulated responses to their inquiries and nO:l'lIJally keep
them. , Again, cODlputer-based data is, not reallyreJ..evant in
evaluating student lea;:ning; students',written work is the
major relevant data source; " class work 1,..,.'; 08"1.1 discussed by teachers and students. In
(3) Judgment data, Tc!<"wher jUdgments l1avElbeen collected
informally by the project through' inf6:rmalinterviews 'fe€ld-'
back from conferences and Project work~hops,and from ' other
Project meetings. AS, reported earlier, teac:hers, already
working in local history with primary sou1:cematerial ,and with
inquiry modes are enthusiastic about the materials.' The main
appeal of the materialsislrrtheidea of data bases and
information retrieval by computer: , the substance must be
regenerated by indivi4.1al users (though some materials
"packages" would bet:<:,,\nsferabie). The main diffiCUlty is
that history teachers '3re often computer--naive and, would have
difficultyoperating the system ••,i thoutSl.lpport froncomplltor
"experts", thou~h the:::", may bEl schools computingpoople(maths
and computing teachers and advisors). They have a "natural"
reticence about the technology. 'StUdent judgmellts hoi"e also
been collected infonoQl1y by the Project, user schobls ,UNCAL
and other visitors. Students seem extremely ent.'ll,siastic,
particularly about following up t?eir own incuiries, and their
own hypotneses. ,Like T:luch inq:uiry-teaChing, -the Project's
approach is highly mo d vating, capturing stUdent_ interest
and imagination" Some students do find themselvesi~turnec1
off" by null returns' tdfnquiiies, others no doubtfirld the
exercise difficult to get excited about. This group is not
large, on evidence from the Project. Outsider jUdgments come
from HI1 Inspectorate, 1. e. a. advisors, potential use:t:s,
NDPCAL site-visitors and others• . Mostenaorse the Project
in terms of, student motivation and illlag'ination. S!)DlP-are
criti.cal of t?e approach as fostering indtlcti.on at the
expense of .caution about hist~rical generalisatiorl, ,others
feel that students may miss 'out on national trendS if they
are seduced by purely local: interests. Outsider jUdgments
of the "Writing History Bulletih" and of stUdent and class
work have often been highly positive, but it must be
acknOl~ledged that theSe have sometimes been "showpip-ces"
- 384 -.
rather than regular classroom work. Nevertheless, the quality
of studen'c ,'ark in writing history has been judged as high.
(4) C}inic;::J. aD.a}~lSes/clos€· observation/etc., The Project
has ol)~Y::;rved st::.'~":,yr,ts closely in their work J has interviewed
pupils v and t:'ctker:\ n general interest in idiographic data.
Li ttl<, Lo.c',oal w:.,).7'J::;is has been done J though the substancG of
students ~ cont:;::;..r/(~.~'.ions to the Ut<Jriting History Bulletin" has
been closely "J"t'cod .by its editor (the Project Director), and
short, idio(p.aphic data has fed judgmant data; it is not
available i.n :rC'ports on close analyses, though t.'1ese may well
be interestir:.g ..
.;1chi{:veman't in studAnt learning area: The Project can fairly
clain:. to hC!.ve u,chie"led success i.n creating the conditions for
Type E in.t0:(.'~:i.-:;t.ions and associated V~arnings to occur. On
the basis of. l~he evaluative evidence it is reasonable to claim
that Type E .lxcU"",·ac·tions have taken place with some students
and some rnatE-~:ciQ.IB 5 t:'Jl~'.:;gh hatural1y ;lhigh-level~; learnings
cannot be gUa:r:Z1nteed ;-'J~ use of the materials (it depends on
how students and tea';)'''':s use the opportunit.ies created by
the ma.terials) ~ It ~.:;; J.lfficult to assess the quality of
lea.!"ning overall, b . ..1': ·:~:.:itL:usiasm for the work produced by
pU::.?ils is hifJh amo:':1:':] (.:~Ci::S e::"td observers.. The evidence though
I
most:ly i.nforma1 9 see.rT4 ~;"'~ner.;:"lly positive.
Kinds of learning POSt~.'..i,_7.e, Since what is learned by students
is deterrained by con'<L~,'r:,i..O!lg off-line, not on-line., i t is
difficult to assess IaN the approach could be extended.
Clearly, a range of ~,~s could be fOlli~d for the information
retrieval system in a n~~er of subject matters.
A typical learning exp"rience, Middle school pupils are studying
nineteenth centuxy rural life. In studying the census returns
for the period, they formulate inquiries whic."l will help them
to test hypotheses they have about the nature of life in the
village of Risby, Suffolk. Hany students are interested in what
children like themselves did in 1851 and formulate inquiries
relating to age groups and occupations.. One asks fur a list of
all scholarso Anot<'1er asks for a list of all children in a
given age group with occupations. They use the computer-
generated data in t."'e next week's class to answer their own
questions, to frame further hypotheses, to discuss life in the
village and conjecture about t.'1e conditions of rural life.
These two children contribute to a group report on children's
occupations in Risby in 1851.
- 385 -
 This concluding section presents asumrriary. of· th<:r'issues
addres"0ld. in t.hesewor]<irtg papers; Itis,orgaIiisedaround
the four theraes of (l) knowledge' and learning i (2) describing
comp,:ct,"r aSI3·l:;;t\';,~,>J,earning, (3j evaluation, and(4}'GAL
inno~j;.~,tJ:Qn .:1:,::\ >j~urr:rculum. development. A-brief ?ostscript
sugge:><:stb,.;tfllrtherresearCh iriight useflllly J develOIl some of
"the 1'l6rspectives'advOcatsd here, arid placesthEi working papers
v within the context of democraticev'aluatiOri.

The method in' these concluding c6llll1lentshas been to out-

line the analytical frameworks developed more fully in other
,Chapters. REiferertcehas not been made to 'specific chapters in
this ,sectiOn ~-' thE! reader ""''l w'ants, to follow Uli issues
raised here should refer " j;Cc',' 'chapter ,abstracts provided in
the Corttentsiwhic."l 'wille j,!ld:Uca'te ,which chapters are ';relevant.
o

l(IlOW1edge <irid

Seeing studentz ;:.<',n:n, ~;8 are always confronted with the

probl",m of ui,dersta;{,jjI'J t;ll", rmture of lmowlEidge. Is it in
the words1:hey lecJ:,,:,' The sJdlls? In their heads (i:Cleas)?
Is ita copy of reality?' ~lould such a copy bed' "direct:.'
repres,.mt,aUonof ths rea'! (a logical pi.cture)? Or would it
be "i:1di.rect"-- a kind of knowledge structure whidl allows
the iearnert6regene~ato veridical statements'about the
world (semantic net:wod:s or hierarchies of concepts)?

In observing stud"nts learning through cm,," I have been

impre~sed by the obvious activity of their learning. '.rile
positfon 'taken in"tliese papers Is an intera'ctionist view of
knowledge, best summarised in pi.aget's ~hrase (in his

- 3a6 -
- 387 -
 'rhis concluding section presents" a summary, of thE" ·'issues
addres'3ed, in these working papers;, ,It is ,organiSed around
the.'fourthernes'of (1) knowledge' and learning,,:: (2) 'describing
computeras:3",::b,;,j"J,earning, (3)' evaluation, and(4l' CAL

sugge0t,e', te",;\: further ,research 'iIlight usefully/develop some of

'1ihe[3GispcGtiVes' aavo'catea here; and places the workirig papers
v within the'context of deniocraticevaluation.

'rhe method in these 'concluding comments' has been" to out-

line the analytical frameworks developed more fully in other
',chi:lpters. RefEireIlce,has not beeri made to 'specific chapters in
this ':~sedti6n,:.... ;,..the: reaaef i wh.6 'fAiants: to follow ',up' :fssues
raised here should refer '" ""'", chapter' abstracts provided in
the,Conteuts/,'which 'wilJ::.Ll:id:tcate ·\,lhiCh cha.:pters cfre':relevant.

Know1.edge <irid

Seeing atudent2 >'<':01>:0, WO are always confronted with the

problem'6f ui,d€>rsta",;v;tl1e nature of knoWledge. Is it in
, ... .
the wor'asthey iear"J::;~'" The skills? In their heads ([(:leas)?
Is it a copy 'of reaEty? Hould such a copy be "direct'"
reJ?~:es':mtad.oIlof' ths real (a logical p:!.ctur.'M Or would it
be "i:1dl.rect"-- a Had of knowledg8 structure which allows
the 'learl1.ertO regene:-::ot.i, veridical statements ~out the
world (semantic nef\.7o.cks or hierarchies of concepts)?

In obs~rving students learning through CAL,I have been

impre~sed by the obvious activity of tlieir learning. 'fhe
position taken intliese papers is an interactionist view of
knowledge, best summarised in piaget's phrase (in his

- 386 -
- 387 -
 "
Psgqhologgarlll EPi.stemologg, 1971, 1'.118), "the object is
ne'l1er ~nQ\'Ill exceptthrQugh .the. thought of a subject, but the
l;lubjectitself:los not~nownexcept in adapting itself to the
object~" . To understanCi wnat students know through CAL, ,qe
must se.e what they do•...• In descdping knowledge in the l'IATLl'lD
P~ojeqt,. ~leanorWrigh~.andI remarked that, from the learner's
point. of vi"w,. '."the tasks.<tr" th@l!lathematics." Generally
speaking, it .i.s .a mis.take ·to think of knowledge and.. learning in
CAL in terms of content or information (or representations)
alone; . knowl€;dge i.s. mapi.fest. i.n .<tction.
In. ol:lserving CAL, I have been .furthElr impressed by the way
in whichdEwelopers speak about.what they want: theirs;tUdents
to know asa r.esult o"f. their CAL ()xperieJ;lces. They. speak of
"getting. a fe.el.for- ••• ",. of "intUitive grasp" , and of ".seeing
the point of .... " .. These developers rec(xJnise the taci t aspect
of knowing; they respect it as highly as those propositional
learnings which can be captured in words.
Obse~ers of CAL innovations (evaluat:0rs, developers,
teachers, students) see these features and talk about them in
makin.g their- educational claims. They are tllUS forced to
come to terms with ther-elationship between knOWing and doing
(interactionism) and between knOWing and be~ng (tacit knOWledge) •
So. some recognise a need for il theory of meaning which might
provide a way of understanding meaning'-making through C'Uo.
Here Wittgenstein's notions of "forms of life" and '''language
games" ilre helpful -- thro\l(.]h them we may interpret the
processes of growth and development of knowl",dge through CAL.
They remind us of the embeddedness of meaning in life-contexts,
and of language .as a means merely of orientiJ;lg peo9le to
- 388 -
knowledge. (Language is not a repository of kncmledge, nor is
it a transmission medium for communicating knoflleage from
sendarto receiver) •
Dut ','hile the IUttgensteinian perspective provides a
theory of meaning, it is less adequate as a theory of learning.
\~hen we see students learnirig through CAL, we notice how they
must be prepared for the learning op;;>ortunitfes available in
the CI.:L experience, we riotice how theirinteiactioris with the
materials malee t11em aware of features of their own experience
reflected in the materials, and we notice that their descrip-
tions of their learning after CAL experiences are often more
.. their
like . .teacl1ers,"
.... ~. "·it· h e 1·ps.... you. to' v).·sualise ...... I ; , \;it
gives you a good feel for the model, not just the equations",
"it gives you a visual idea of the wave function for various
energy states", "I got an understancling of moments of inertia'; ,
and so on.
The theoretical mocel of learriing we haVE! employed to
cope with these observations construes learning in terms of
the evolutionary differentiation of exper1.i3nce. Withiri this
view I' teac..rlers ~ goals are understood not as goals£ort..l1.e
student (implying that evolution is goal--oriented) hilt as one
aspect of the environment to which the student must adapt.
.The use of an evolutionary metaphor is justified by seeing
how va.dation in experiGnce is induced by b'1e stuc1ent"'CAL ,
interaction, h01q selection operates on action and ihlllemory
to conserve some of ti19se variants and relinquish others. ana
hGW . repro d uced"s
experience ~s Q students act in known ways in
new settings.. "i'ur th ermore I 1'1-0::: can be"').'n
;) to i .....
r1 enti fy Darallels
..
in experience for features of evolution in biolo,;oy, gerioty:?e,
- 389 -
epigenesis,.phenotype anti offsp:dng have their countorp<\rts educationally-significant learning itproducec'; by CAL, we must

in ??gni.tiy~.~:~ruct}lX~~",d£!yeloI)men~alproc~s~~s. aIld equi~ ask what forms of kncMledge the student-CP.L interactions educe.
libr<\tion, activity structures and action. !:Jut the evolution Describing.in general what these forms are and how CAL educes
of experience is a highly volatile process, much more volatile them is t.11e task of the researcher; describing them in the
than biologicalevolutio.n... case of specific CAL materials (and thus providing the basis
for critique) is the task of the evaluator.
The processes .which ~,:te:rpin the evolutionary differen-
tiation of ",xperie~ce all depend upon the engagement of the
leprJ;ler by th",learniI)g task. '.rhe view of knowledge developed 2. Describing computer assisted learning
here is of kno,~ledge by partic.ipation. Knowledge exists in
~~e interaction between the student. and the obj",cts. of inter- students always learn. The difficult questions are
action (Cl'.L materiels, computer terminals stlbject-matter .. H\'1hat?l; and ';how?C; 'fhe answers are never easy because, in tJ.~e
etc.). 1ne~e ~~objec:tsIC impqse forms on the intez:oaction process~' WDPCAL as in the context of most:educational innovations,
they .constrain what can be lea;rned .frcm them. CAL materials dGvelopers have ~ihigh-le'VelI1 floalsfor 'b.~e student users of
represent sets of learnipg oplJOrtup.i ties; they structure their materials, they' often use CAL as a ,means to achieve
interaction. 3y constraining tho activity structures of the • lidifficule l learnings II and because t..lley trust their intuitions
student they exert systematic effects on his cognitive structures. as teachers rather ~~an research on learning in deciding when
Through the interaction, the structures built into the CAL and how to use CAL. CAL devGlopment in the National Programme
materi9-1~ cr~.ai::H a ki,ndof r?Sogniti.ve echQ~~ ,in the ~tudent is practitioner·...led t not research-based.. Th8 language of
this "echo" is what is learned. Thus the crystallography student developers runs far beyond the modesty even prim; language of
co~es to part;icipate in ~qpoi~t~~gJ:'OtlP ~ymmetry oP'.erafions learning theory. Few of t:.':te claims they. make are theor,.,tically
which d<lscribe t11" ways threeo·dimensiQnal space is filled; the tlsafe~l ones, from the evalue.tors point of viaw 11 though some-
m",dic"l student participates
,', in the forms
.
of action of the
'
times t.~ey take refuge in the safety of truisms.
general 1?~actiti5?ner ,in,cli!l,ical decision making ~ the ertgineer·-
ing student 1)articipates in. the forms of thought of a physical In describing learning t.~rough CAL, the evaluator must
model in designing aerials; the history stude~t parti~ipates attempt to describe the learning process. Measuring learning
~n,~r~tin~, history ~ using 'the com1?uter to tabulate information outcomes may djLstort our understandings of learning through
f~om census retur~s~ CAL because tests are rarely CAL-specific and, in any case, the
test situation is usually distant in time, space and meaning'·
CI.L experien.ces contain task structures for stucents context from the learning situation. (Recognising this real
learning opportunities., The CAL task is there, student or· potential separation, some develop<lrs of adaptive-tutorial
experience flows out to fill it. In asking about the
i

'"
!

- 390 - - 391 -
C'U. build the tests into the learning process in "teach-
(b) PedagogicaLf-structures are expressed in the teaching
test~ sequences). 'l'he problem for the evaluator who accepts strategy built into the materials. 'I'hey often embody
the. implications of this view is one of finding languages for models of. the learning process (governing such matters
as the timing of feedback in tutori""l CAL'. the order in
discussing the CllL learning process. We have chosen the which rul8s and examples are pres"nted, the .amount of
language ofstudent-CllL interactions, we choose it because it information con.tained in each ".episode" of. tlle inter-
action, the degree of "openness" of simulations and
is compat~ble with our view of knowledge and because it is their accompanying student guides,. and the like) ..
consonant with the kinds of claims teachers m~te about the Pedagogical f-structures also refer.. t6 task-structures
which specify exactly what tn.e student is to do. The
learning process. notion of task structures ""llow"dus to recClgnise that
students sometimes see themselves as. merely "carrying
out instructicns'; rathe.r than learning the subject-
The power of c;u. materials comes from the way they matter which justifies iIlvolving them in the interaction.
structure the interaction process. For the learner, CllL They learn to survive in .tl1e.classroom and the CilL
situation by carrying out required tasks , whet.l:ler or
materials prese~ta ~et of in~erlinked tasks (e.g. manipulating not they can make sense of their own experience. We
parameters in a simulation; carrying out the "instructions" call these survival strategies· "learning gam",s".
Sometimes teachers and students "conspire" in a mutual
of an adaptive-tutorial sequence) • By "inviting" the student mystification where learning the learning games is more
to participate in the tasks ti1Gy embody, they preserve the relevant than learning the ideas. For example: a
teacher describes what is to be learned, then gives out
dyll"miCS. of know.ledge; the tasks are for action, not merely a worksheet with instructionS on how tCl .use.thecomputer
to be summed up in a phrase, a proposition or an equation. to get. ti,e answer. StUdents follow ~~e .instructions and
'Jive back the correct answer, perhaps making reference
They preserve the unspecifiability of understanding. to the teacher's description of what was to be learned.
Both are satisfied with the c()rrect an~wer to the problem,
both ignore that quality of thelearnipg process which we
The answer to ~"1e question of how stuC:ent<;< learn through might describe as "following instructions". Giving the
CllL is given when we describe how any student is engaged by correct answer is no guarantee of learning, as most of
us recognise -- yet 5.t is surprising how often we give
the materials in the interaction process. Looking at CllL students the kind of instructions which short-circuit
across the National Programme, we have identified four bands the learning process (e.g. learning formula answers for
examinations from teacl1ers teaching for the test;
of functional constraints (f-structuresJ which influence the learning to do tile "busy-work" of problems worked from
learning process and thus what is learned. ai~cookbookl:l of formulae or the "busy-work',i of laboratory
exercises when inst~ctions for running an experiment are
accompanied by descriptions of appropriate resUlts stage
(a) Subject~matter f-structures refer to the model of subject- by stage, etc.) .
matter ouilt into the· CllL materials. 'rhese constrain how
the st.udent can operate on the subject-matter and there-· (c) operating system f-structures influence the process of
fore influence what can be~learned from them. Adaptive- student-CilL interaction and thus influence what Cru1 be
tutorial CI>L sequences often contain static models of learned. They include a number of technical constraints
subject·"matter (content or information to be learned as (e.g. graphics ca.L)abilities ,.the availability of
words), simulations. often contain dynamic models of selective erase on terminals, size of display, speed of
subject-matter or (dynamic) medels of practice (ideas responsei-and so on). These'kinds of technical
or criteria for judgment to be learned as forms of
thought anc1/or action) •

- 393 -
- 392 -

limitations may impose constraints on students'
perceptions of what is to be learned (eogoa program
cahnot<cbpe w~thnumericalinputwhere1nput values are
great"tthan999'999-- from the student's
perspective is this .a computational limitation or a
limitatiollonthe. theoretical model?) 0 But operating-
systemf-structuies alsocOllcern the language for
responding av<.Uliilile to the student -- observers
point out that .interaction with CAL often involves
quite "unnatu;ral" langll?lges which ctinget in the way of
l(;~rningo. ~his isnot to say th«tnatural language is
the approp~iate la.nguage for interaction with machines;
rather; it is to say that what· is "natural" will depend
on. what the'stuqent wants the machinato de> or to
recognise .·~stripped-down vocabulary of commands
0
which areinptltto the computer by ~ingle-letter codes
may be sufficient for using a quite complicated simu-
latic>llo Ol'jerating instructions, too, influence the
form of the student-CAL interaction, giving the student
an im,:'lge ....- not. always an accurate one-- of what the
compu~er is and. do;;s (;;ogo "will it break down if I
put in the numbers wrong?")o
. (d) Mi11&ux r-structuies' also influence the process of
student-CAL interactiono They parallel the micro-
le'll'elcollstraintsat the other three levels and refer
t0l::llelllacro-level integration of the. CAL experiences
into the·widercurriculumprocess (curriculum
integration) ~d into the physical, temporal t spatial
and resource frilme,~orks (frame factors) in which
learning .through CI'..L takos r>lace
0
The language of f-struc;tures may help in desc;ribing
. student learning by emphasising the context-embeddedness of
the learning processo Properly speaking, the process of
learningfrQli CAL must be descd,bed on a case by case basiso
Some more general observations may be made, however,
" Adaptive~tutorial CAL app~ars to be designed around
pedagogical f-structures, especia.lly a view of the
learning processo It often embodies static models
of the subject,..matter.to be learnedo. Sometimes a
special diffic;ulty arises with respect to operating
- 394 -
systems f-structures -- languages for responding
when developers attempt to m~<e the adaptive-tutorial
dialogue a simulation of a "natured" tutorial
conversation Natural language interaction with
0
computers is still a very distant possibilityo
- Simulation CAL embodies dynamic models of subject..
matter or of practiceo Often pedagogical f-structures
are weak and the student is left to "wander around"
in· the models of subject-matter Recognising the
0
potential dangers in this weak specification of
pedagogical f-structures, developers of CAL simulations
sometimes build strong instructions to students into
the student guides which accompany the CAL experience
sometimes even re,'Jucing the imaginative qualities of
the simulations to the level of exerciseso
~ Modelling through CAr, uses operating-systems f-
structQ~es deliberately to make the machine accessible
to stdc"",nts as a tool for learning Subject-matter
0
and psdagogical f-structures are weak. Students who
ma~'U.:\i;'·
t.~e machine as a tool may~ven come to scorn
it.s use in simulation Hpackages U -- like the students
at the University of Surrey's Computational Physics
Teac;hing Liilioratory (CPTL) who, once they develop
skill in progrmmning the computer to model systems
for themselves,may feel as if they are being "spoon-
fed" when they use teachez--developed packages 0
The language of f-structures refers to the way CAL
creates and constrains learning opportunities for studentso
But th8re are c;ons·traints on the students' side, too 0 What
the students already know will constrain how ~~ey use the
machine, and it will influence what they learn from ito
(It is interesting to speculate about how students will
react to CAL when it becomes a familiar tool for teachingo
Now novelty effec;ts allow students to approach CAL relatively
unenc;wnbered with prior attitudes to it; increasingly--
as in the case of the C0TL students cited above -- they will
become connoisseurs of CAL). On the : student side, we have
referred to the dynal'lic structures (d-·structures) which guide
- 395 ..
 _ _
the learner's though't a'Jld "ction. Th
~ ~se prov:I.'
de a means for
- Forms of action refer to the models of Drac.r.i co '~bieh·
talking about wnat st:quents learn through CAL. students learn from simulations concerned with
developing skills .of diagnosis or patiellt management,
for exatlple, or with learning how to pose and test
D-structures are the cognitive '1 res idues':' or flaccretions·l hypotheses like a historian.
of action in knowledge. Strictly speaking, cognitive
'rhe language of foms of thought and action is imprecise.
structures are only barely accessible to the observer through
In it, the theoretical model of f-'ltructures and d-structures
closecUniCal analysis. More often, the evaluator of CAL
has been submerged so that the descriptions of learning
will be better advised to iliscus'l student learning in terms
through CAL will mor"u"arly approximat" th" language teachers
of activity str'uctures observable regularities in the process
and students use to describe what is learned. In particular,
of student-CAL interaction. As suggested earlier, the
such descriptions give ground to subject-matter concerns --
evolutionary differentiation of experience works on these
the imprecision allows us to speak ,of subject-matter ideas
activity structures and cognitive structures in the learning
as i f they existed independently of the student, yet at any
process.
time it should be possible to return to the more precise
language of f-structures and d-structures to expunge references
In ,,:0: atbqmpt to speak more generally about what students
to the objectivised public discourse characterisations of the
learn th;:owjh CAL, we have discussed d-structures in tenns of
Cl forms of tl'lOUg}l't;; and 11 forrrs o.f -action'~ (as well as ~I action-
ideas. Nevertheless this imprecise usage is forced upon the

thoughti' and "thought-action" hybrids). Describing in detail
what students know (in terms of activity-structures and
cognit.i·'le structures) is a highly-specialised task, and a time-
consuming one. Given, ha",ever, that most people interested in
what students learn through CAL want a much less finely-drawn
picture of their knowledge, the language of forms of thought
and action will suffice. Moreover, such a language is
sufficient for educational critique.
- Forms of thought refer to the dynamical systems of
ideas educed in students through interaction with
simulations based on dynamic models of subject-
matter (for example) • Alopgside these dynamic
models we may place the more static representations
of subje.ct"·m,,,tter in fOrmS of 'IOrds. Adaptive-
tutorial C<'iL often teaches fo=s of words as a
basis for the later developmeht of foms of thought
(e.g. learning the notation of term symbols as a
basis for learning atomic spectroscopy) •
evaluator of CAL: to make an authentic critique of a specific
CAL application, it is necessary to use the language of its
developers and users. They are unlikely to use language as
carefully as the psychologist whose interests are .in the
nature of the learning, rather than in the education of
students. For the evaluated, the concession is • an· important
one.
The critical question in describingh()w learning takes
place in CAL thus becomes "how does CAL engage student
experience toeduc::e these forms of knowledg€'?" So far, we
.-
have described constraints on the learning opportunities
provided in the CAL materials and context (f-structures) and
constraints on the student side (d-structures). But, on the
basis of the ways students are engaged by-the learning

.- 397 ..
- 396 -
o}?portuni ties provided in the National Programme' s portfolio
of OlLiiPplications, i t .is possible to identify different
=des ofenijagemenf. I'M have donethis'iri.t"o ways: first,
by developing a t.ypology of stuJ'Jent,.CliL int.erar;:tions which
permits inferences about what. students might have learned
from the interactions, and secortd. by identifying several
different forms of participation in CAt. ;'xperiences.
The typology ofstlldent-CALintei:l:actioI1s refers to
di'ffererit f'operh:~i6n~1 d~~fnitidns~i"'Of"tlie""'ie:arriirtg'taSkas
these are embodied in theCl'.,Lliiaterials. They refer to
operations OIl \:il.~ s ubj ect-Inattet;Cto-be·-learned:
- 'rypen: interaction~reqtiire the student to recognise
material presented previously. They.require little or
n,9 L1(2·ani,Ilg~~a~il1g,onthe stud~nt ~,~,J?a:rt:. ,', ;Ther~;,_,are
virtU/illy nb examples cif Type· A interactions in ·the
CAL materials. produced unde:c.:the, .auspices of the
National P~ogriiillIDe.
Type Binteractions ·reqllire :the stUdent. to recall
. infOrmation presented previously. They requil':e
practically no 'me-aning-making on the stUdent's part,
but they do require, an act Of content-reproduction.
pome. qu, m~tel':ials,. (especially, adaptive-tutorial) in
National Programme· projects contain. examples of Type
Binteractions.
- Type C interactions call for comprehension or
reconstructive understanding. liere the stUdent must
0em?ns tratecompr,.hension by re~enetating previously-
·given meanings (rather than by regurgitating
preViously-given content). '. '!'he stlldent :gives back
ideas "inhis own words", as i t \'lere . . TypeC inter-
actions are especially frequent in adaptive-tutorial
,CAL.
- Ti./pe D interactlonsc:ah fb:t:thglobalreconstructive
or intuitive understandings from students •. :(n Type 0
ilrteractions,the student works with an idea --
l?erhaps in· a CAL simulation,· though' sometimes in
- 398 -
adapt!ve-tuto.r...ial sequences --_ to Q5(tAmj)0'risQ o.:r .::act:
like a master.. rrhese interactions engage the student
intensively in meaning-making, 'but the meanings to be
made are often .eroboClied in the ClIL materials as models
(producing fOrmS of thought or action in the student) .
The CAL material in many of the projects in the National
Programme work t~oughType D interactions.
- Type E interactions involve r;:onstructive understanding.
They usually take place in the context of modelling via
'the coml>uter or using the computer as a research tool.
In the case of Type E interactions the student is
involved in the kind of meaning-making which occurs in
research, making new meanings for himself. The student
att6Qpts to establish his·mastery of the subject-matter
in his own terms.
The typology of student-CAL interactions allows us to make
inferences about what students learn in terms of the degree to
which they are involved in the process of meaning-making. It
should not be thought that Type E interactions are always more
valuable than, say, l'y1"" C. At different stages in learning
some subject-'lJlatter, different types of interactions will be
appropriate. And for pedagogical reasons the teacher or CAL-
developer may want to provoke different kinds of interaction
(e.g. involving students in the prob16ms of a field through
Typ~ E interactions before introducing them to its theoretical
~erminology via Type 3 or C interactions) •
On ~~a stu?~ntts side, however1 we must again ask how it
is that L~e student invests his experience in the CAL materials.
One answer is, simply that the materials are th0:t:'.e (atH.l .. it
could be added t students expect to submit themselves to
learning interactionscf various kinQs as part of u18ir
education). But if learning· is indeed a precess of participation
in possible forms of knowing, it becomes relevant to consider
the ·forms of participation CAL materials invite ._- how it
- 399 -
 ~lgets tJ.~em in:' f as it \'l81,·e.. To descJ;ibe hew CliL Bcaptures/:
provided by a?y particular CAL application represent a niche
student experienc(;;;; we mooted b,e idea 6£ the organon (instru-
for students -- a niche which educes particular forms of
ment) of knowing. Several forms of participation (organa of
thought and forms of action. To understand the unique
'knowing) suggested themseivesfrom the C~ materials we
potential of any particular CAL application, we must ask what
observed 'in ~~e National Progr&~e:
kinds of opportunities, it offe:t's --, the set of possible inter-
actions it contains and how it actually cons~ains the
- In some simulations, the materials induced a ra~~er
activities of the. learner.
"direct" form of: participation. ,The students confronted
ti,e new ideas embodied in the materials as students.
The materials invitBd them ,to ;:be u1tw.re of ...... 't ~ to
;~notice ...... ;~; or to :'see thedffects of I,

3. Evaluation
- Other simulations t~orked more "inCirectly". They
invited students to identify t~i til tile simulated
situations, taking roles within them. Th'" Glasgow 'rhe approach to evaluation advocated in thElse working
Clinical Decision Making Project's medical simu- papers is also based on the view of knowledge outlined. in the
lations give stuC:ents theol'portunity to play roles
in patient munagement situations, trying out their first section of this conclusion. There are perhaps four
ideas of what it means to be a general practitioner central evaluation tilemes revisited tilroughout tile papers.
or hospital clinician ..
They concern (a) the evaluation of potE..ntial vs. evaluation
- Adaptive-tutorial CAL sometimes se~edt() work by the of achievement, (h) tile importance of description in informing
partic~l?ation ofreci tatiDp..S:tudent!?rehearseq. the
ideas presenteu to them in the tasks provided by the critique, (c) tile use of naturalistic and idiographic
CAL materials. By rehearsing the ideas, they might methods, and (el) the problem of coping with different levels
come to,d'Ylell in them as th~ir own ,i,deas~· they
develop a sense of what it means to use words like ~~e of rhetoric.
ones used in the materials.

- Modelling O\L also uses a very ~'c1irect;i form of (a) Potential vs. achievement
participation. Students use the computer to explore
their own ideas. Perhaps they participate through a
kind of identificaticn -- seeing themselves as As has already been suggested, evaluation audiences
researchers '._-, but, within the exercise at least,
interested in the educational value of CAL (either from a
they are ri3searchers" so i,t may be mere t'1ord-play to
describe their participation in terns of l'playing the developer or a use~ perspective) may find measures of
role 'of researcher 1' ..
learning outcomes unhelpful in m~~ing juc:gments about CAL.
Given information about how CilL works in practice and about
The major conclusion to be 4rawnab0ut GAL as exe~plified
~ ~'le kinds of oppor,tunities for learning CAL provides, however,
in the projects of the National PrQIj'rm;l.r?G: is that it has the
tiley can make tileir own judgm€lnts of its value. Available
capacity to structure student e~2erience tilrQughtile process
languages for describing learning opportunities are often
of $tudent-'Ct\,L interaction. Th". learningolJPortuni t.tes

- 40() ... - 401 -

weak (e.g. "it gives students a feel for .•• "). The languages
developed in these papars(e,g. thE: typology of student-CIIL
interactions, the 'types of f-structures ,the forms of
participation) may suggest ways of improving the quality of
descriptions of the learning process.
I f the view of knOWledge adoptediR these papers is
accepted, then it is the learning process rather than the
content to be learned which is important in deciding the value
of cm,. If knowledge is manifest in action rather than
particular acts (e.g. decisions) and in the appropriate use of
words (rather than in the words themselves); 'then the value of
CAL must be decided in terms of the knowledge processes it
educes. Using such languages as the ones'developed here, it
may be possible to describe the learning process in some detail,
and thus inform judgments about the educational potent:1al of
specific CI<Le~veriences;
(b) Description and critique
Our experience of evaluating ClL and student leaoling in
the National Programme suggests ~~at, given descriptions of
what students do in learning from CAL, evaluation audiences
can decide for themselveS the worthwhileness of a particular
CAL aDPlication. The evaluator can inform the judgment
process simply·by giving audiences access to the CAt experi-
ence. Beyond this, t.~e evaluator can educate the perceptions
of t.'lose who must judge CnL by aescribing critical examples of
success and failure in CAL as judged by participants in its
context of use -_. people like teachers, students and local
- 402 -
educational administrators. A critical example of success might
be that of the student who produced a distinguished A-level
project ~ging the Local History Classroom Project's 'computerised
data baSe. Examples' of "failure" in these terms might include
the learning games of 11 group of l1ATIJUl stucents who simply
followed a teacher's instructions for operating the machine to
generate correct answer~ toproblems~w they explained their
lack of learning to themselves in terms of giving help to the
teacher with seme reseai:chproject which they didn' t know about,
or the example of the CI\LCHEM students who couldn't help short-
circuiting the learning process in the experiment-'planning
programs ~lhen they saw' other students working in the lab on the
experiment they were to' OJ'desigri i ). in the CAL exerci'se ........ th.ay
had alrea<:1y seen the final design by the time they came to work
-
out how the experiment should b8 done. Such examples educate
judgment by highlighting the sJrts of problems~lhichemerge in
CAL work.
Ultimately, the role of the evaluator of CbIL is to inform
critique of the materials. A basis for critique is established
when the learning process is described and when the issues
relevant to participants ana interested observers have been
brought into t.'!e open. Sometimes it may even be possible to
describe the Hecology!' of a CAL application as the naturalist
might db ~- pointing out the interactions between teachers,
students, subject-matter and milieu in the CAL setting.
(c) Naturalistic methods
In the first of the working vapers in this volume,. an
argument is r:i.ade for the use of "idiG"'fJxaphic u evaluation.
- '103 -
 ,
i
ThO1.8 l.nvo.1 ves (~essriptive
0 ' casestndicGcfstuoeni:s le,~rnin9"
TwO types of stu<'1Y deserving special mention are process
studies (like shadow studies, where the .evaluator "shadows"
a student, collecting data about a whole learning episode) ,
and clinical analy.ses where the evaluatorattEmlpt5 to describe
the. activ.1.tystructures in the stude.nt~CAL interaction and to
make inference!! about the student's cognitive structures (as
these are engaged in the interaction). Techniques appropriate
to idiographic e.valuation include observation (possibly using
note-taking; videotape"audi()tai?E?'iI computer.. . generated records r
or student 0 s working notes) and intervi.ew (possibly using
introspective data like contemporaIleous reconstruction or
retrospective reconstruction which tie in directly with
observation data) • These data. may be interpr",ted at various
levels of specificity from the micro-levels of cognitive
structures and activity structures or d-structures and f-
structures, to the macro-levels of forms of thought and action
aMi the aims and rationale of a package.
(d) Levels of rhetoric
Discussions about the pot,mtial of CAL take place at many
different levels. I'lllen teachers discuss CllL in terms of ele
aims of packages ,t.lley speak at the level of curriculum eleory.
The elree or four educational par'!'digms. for cnLoutlined in
Chapter 2 (instructional, revelatory, conjectural, emanci-
patory) are at this level. i'lllen teachers discuss what they
want students to learn from cnL ... they are. more likely to use
a learning-eleory-level language. The languages of f- and
d-structures and the typology of interactions .are appropriate
- 404 0-
for this level. The language of forms of thought and forms
of action falls somewhere between the two.
There is, however, a pressing need in evaluation for the
means of synthesising discussions of Cf~ materials across these
disparate levels. In Chapter 6, we have attempted a synthesis
of different levels in the MATLAB project -- the levels of
subject-matter, curriculum aspirations, the niche for students
and student learning. An attempt is made in that chapter to
demonstrate how these levels interpenetrate in reality, using
the model of evolutionary epistemology . . At this stage, the
analysis is merely suggestive.
4. CAL innovation and curriculum development
One issue of perennial interest in the evaluation of CAL
is ele relationship beoleen cnL innovation and curriculum
development. It turns out that Cl'lL innovations are always
attempts to do something new in curriculum, though most often
against a background of more traditional aspirations. Again
using the metaphor of evolutionary epistemology, we have
attempted to consider the interaction between CA~ innovation
and curriculum development, describing them in the case of the
MATLAB Project as a process of curriculum evolution. Through
this analysis, we have attempted to shew some of the effects
of trends at the different levels. The process of curriculum
evolution is r8IDarkably coherent, yet outside ele development
group it may be difficult to achieve thorough-going imple-
mentation of the curriculum i0eal. When ne~l users take up
only some aspects of the ne., curriculum resolution, there are
- 405 -

sometimes curious ccnse
. quences. Teachers and students may
(from the developers' perspectives) undervalue either or both
the curriculum development and the CAL innovat'l.on ..
It may seem unnecessary to tackle such broad issues of
curriculum and innovation in understanding stUdent learning
through OAL. On the contrary, the analysis of stUdent-CAL
interaction in terms of. f-structures and d-structurc.s
= suggests
that learning milieu always exerts an influence on what is
learned (by affecting how it is learnea'). Moreover,
it is
impossible to provide the means for authentic critique without
taking into account the values of developers as these are
expressed at th& level of curriculum. &Jhy the potential
interactions built into the CAL materials are as they are will
depend on that higher"'level ration,'le.
.. li'or these reasons,
evaluation of student learning must be concerned wit.l} the wider
issues. Just as learning must be considered as a process, so
must curriculum practice. To be judged in their historical
context, historico-critical methods must be used (the study
·0£ the politics and processes of curriculum development and
innovation; studies of the' learning process) .
Postsoript
Thes& werking •oapers are e·ssent<nll·y
.- specu1ative. They
have attempted to establish a Derspective en the evaluation of
student learning. While they make a contribution to the
evaluation of student learning through CAL as i t is found in
the National Progr~mne, they also raise research issues in
curriculum, evaluation and learning. The ramifications of
- 406 -
Q
the.interactionist perspective adopted here need fur.ther
research. li'rom.my own perspective,. .the ramifications of the
evolutionarymet~phqrwould seem to provide Particularly
promising grist for the research mill. The possibility. that
such a perspective might provide the .mean,; for gen"ratin9 an
educational psychology.relevant tp practical curriculum issues
would. seem by itself to.be .a reason for further wor~il'l the
area. Professor Jchn i\Anett, in his SSRC report Coml'uters in
Eduoation. L969/L975.rem"rks ,t,hat the. National l?rogr<!I"urce' s
. develol'mentwork may prove to .be a useful fOundation for
researchDn learning. If. learning pSYchologists will accept
the di"versity of uses of OAL and recognise therichnes~ of
real-life learning, then.it seems tome that Annett is right.
Learning psychology has much to learn about learning from the
real life of educational. practice.
•
.'inally, it may be of some interest to evaluation
resea.rchers to explain the role of .these working papers within
.the UNCAL independent educational evaluation. of. the NDPOAL.
The UNCilL evaluation .is conceived lorimarily as a democratic
evaluation (MacDonald, . 1!l76 ). These working papers, being
speculative, ha'/e the mark of an autocratic evaluation .about
them. Though it is undOUbtedly th& case that many of the
issues addressed here have been introduced into the evaluation
through my own epistEmlOlogical, curricular and psychological
interests, it neverth&less seems to me that they are straight-
forwardly countenanced within a democratic model. First of
all, there is tlle adherence to the negotiation principle
(tl,ough the release of Chapter 6 was not negotiated with the
Project concerned, almost all th& rest of the content has been
- 407 -
 Q

· negotiated t~ith 'project people where specific references "have

been made to their work) •.• There· is, second, the important
· role 'of
'
a.ri t:i:que in democratic' evaluation•.' ,.,The ,democratic
--.'. ' . . . . '., - ';,,! ", .

evaluator must advance perspectives 'sY11thesised :CrOlllthe

· statements and values of participants relevant to the issues
they revardas . signi£icant.. ThoU'Jhthese w.ork:Lng papers
togethEir attempt a synthesiS farmoreglobal.than participants
woUlddemana,. they do attempt't6' reconcile real and expressed
concerns abolit student learningacross'rnany levels and thus
provide a Unifying perspective from which critique is.possible.
It cannot be claimed that the evolutionary metaphor is entirely
neutral with respect to the perspectives of participants, but
it is fair to say that such a 11letaphor is uniquely capable of
embracing diversity of perspective without collapsing it; Its
prime concern is, after all;' with explaining differentiation .._
the fact of diversity. Finally, there is the fact that these
are working papers _... they represent the method6logi cal writings
ofa democratic evaluator attempting 'tograsp significant
issues W:L thin the situation under stUdy; To the extent that
they help projects' internal ovaluators to describe CAL and
make it accessible to decision-makers, they are within the
aspirations of the democratic approach.

~ 408 -
- L1.r09 ...
 ~eckerQ H. Geer, D., Huglles;E •. C. and Strauss, A. L.
Doys in White. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1961.

Allport, G. ~1. Use of Personal Documentation in Psychological

Science. (Prepared for the Committee on Appraisal of
Research). ,'lew York: Social Science Research Council
Du11etins, 1942.
Anastasio, E. J. "Evaluation of the PLATO and TICCIT
Computer-Dased Instructional Systems -- A Preliminary
Plan". Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing
Service, July, 1972.
Anderson, J. R. and Dower, G. H. Uuulan Associative Memory.
New York: Wiley, 1973.
Anderson, R. C. "The Comparative Field Experment: An
Illustration from High-School Dio1ogy". Proceedings of
the 1968 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems.
Pr'.nceton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service,
1969, 3-30.
•
AnCerson, R. C. "How to construct achievement tests to
measure comprehension", Review of iSC:ucational Research,
1972, 4~, 145-170.
DergmanCl, G. "The contribu'tion of Jcihril};watson",
Pzydhqlcgica1·Review, 1956,_6_3: 265~~76.
Uernc.ulli i' D • "Exposition of i;,·!·~;k~.'l'1je.,:.ryon~l1e l-leasurement
of Riek". In G.A.Millei::':,(ei!:). '~lathematics and
Psychology. London: Wiley, 1964.
.l
"Mastery
J: L'.e'·'a'~·;';,"''''',,,,,.::·
,.;.,.•. ,..
,;.~
In ,J,.'.. H. D10ck (ed.)
Mast,",}~ Learning: Theory and Practice. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
. ;;;1000, D. "Individual Diffe::enc"'l3,'t. y",nishing Poi.nt?"
In LouisJ. Rubin ('oJ,) "'i,ets and Feelings in t:he
Classroom. New. Yo:::'k.' Vj.;;'1.';;~g, 1973.

Annett, J. Computer Assisted Learning 1969-1975 (il report

prepared for SSRC). London: Social Science Research
Council, 1976.

Atkinson, P. "The ReproQuction of Hedical Knowledge". :Jooco'ck" "S'.o: S.·; :,anq ,'S0;11.1d;~:, ,~ .• O·. ?·Intr~,~~9-tion. In
Department of Sociology, University College, Cardiff S. S. LJOOoock anJO.Schild (ees.) Simulation
(mimeo), 1976. ,Q.c!PS in Learn:!;;,'S" Beverly Hills, Calif., Sage
Pl.~';.i:"catiQns,:, lLf"G.
Ausubel, D. P. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View.
i~ew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Dridg~~~1 ;W.,A.'::anO J,.~~nr~.;).lard, D. ," i~Micro-Evaluati~n, -- A
,"",!. ~;!li'Jhasis :l'OI"'.:;"",U. Seal" )']va1uation." Institute
Ausube1, D. P. and Robinson, F. G. ~chool Learning. ~~'G ~ ti~d-;cati.ona1. '1\., (;hnology , UJ11.~;,e.rsity of Surrey
New York: Holt, Rin"hart and Winston, 1969. (,~",,"eOri October,.'.il75.
Ayscough, P. D. "Academic r"actions to educational innovation," and U~.l,::'~; R. ~tA-Wave-Form
Studies in Higher Education, 1976a, l' 3-9. Pape:r.2rF ee!,1ted, at Clu;.77
of S,,,tr,,(.,i',' .iI'larch, 1977.
Ayscough, P.~. "Computer assisted learning: An exercise in
evaluation," Computers and Education, 1976b, l' 47-53. Druner, J. S. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1966:----

- 410 -
-: 411 -
;:;rooer, J. S. Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge,
Diderot/benis,>etal. !'l_ncyc1op~(1ie, ou Diction11aire
l~ass., Harvard University Press, 1966.
Raisonne ',des' Sciemces, 'des Arts i "et' des Metiers,' (par
ooesdCi~te,' de: gens de, 1ettres). 36 'loIs .,and 3 'loIs •
nrooer, J., Goodnow, J. J. and Austin, G. A. A Study of plates. Lansanne, Les Societes Typographiques,
Thi~~l1g,New Y01;k, John Wiley, 1956.
1778"1782,
Campbell, D. T. "Reforms as eXiJEf:bimen ts p It Driver, R. P. "The Representation of Conceptual Frameworks
l?sy<,.holoqist, 1969, 32., 409-429. !in'Ct1.i14*§n"~ 'I?h,p,pissertation; University of
Illinois at Urbana",Cha..ilpaign,1972.
Campbell ,0; T. "Evo1utionetryEpistemology. .. In P.A. SchUpp
(ed.) The Philosophy of E<::r:'!: Popper, vol. 14, I and du Uouley, b. "Learning Teaching Mathematics." Paper
U! • 'T~e Library of Li v~.n\'1 l'hilosoI'hers. ' ,La SAlle, pr~sentedatthe SSRCResearchSGminar,on Computer!! in
, Il;l:in(ji!;: Open :Court, 19'/4. Education'r'IJni'l!,!1;!!,i,tyo,:I::Warwick, Coventry ,J],).ly 14-16,
Carbonell, J. R. Mixed-Initi,ative Man"M~ciii~~:rnstructional 1976.
Dia~,ogues.' Cambridge, Mass., 'Dolt, Iierane~~~d EaSfey, , J;' A~ "'i.'hestructural paradigm in protocol ",!,a l '1,;is,"
Newmall'19 70." ' 'Journa,;I:'pf',Researchin Science Teaching" 1974, 1.;1:,
Chivers, ,I, D. "Attitudes of Students Knowledgeable in 281"-290.
CdnlPutini;l to CAL
Packages ."", Paper. preRentedto NATO Easley, J,lli. etal; "1" bi,.:>,-assall' of biology tests," The
Ad::~?:ce,d,' study,' Insti t.1Jt~~;.,~o;;~PUt82:.·D~~"E;Gd,;.'Sci~nc;e- American DiologyTeil.~her,,1967,29,382-389,
Im"c~""ction, Universite Catholiquede.Louvain, July, 1976.

Easler, 'J. A.andZwoyer, R~ ': "TeachingDy Listening

CholIlskY," N "A Review of·' Verbal Behaviour by B. E.' Skinner," • Towar<.1 1\. New Day in Math cia::;;~es, "<:o11eg\3 of Education,
Language; 1959,35, 26-58. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (mimeo),
Coleman, J. S. "Social Processes and Soc1'al Simulation no date;
Games ....InS. S. Iloocock and E. 0. Schild (eds.)
Si.!.!lulation?"-!U8s in !--",.c:~n~. neverly Hills ,CAlif. :
EdwarGs, \-l. and Tversky, A.. (eds •)
liarin6nGi:wcirth: pengUin ,,1967 •
-Decision-Making.
-
S.::.g-e)?,ublications 1/ 10£8.
Eisner. E. W. ':"The Perceptive Eye.'iTowar4. the Refp:cmation
"Report on a psychometric mission to of Educational Evaluation." Invited address, Division
Psycb.:r;>etrika, 1954,19," 253-270, 13 ,Curdl::u1uro.and objectives ,Annual Meeting of t:;'),e
American Educational Research' Association, ·~lashington,
Cronb,:,_',:'1"L. J,';The tt'6 disciplines of scientific
D.C., March 31, 1975.
PSi__ hology," ~~!ican Psycholoqist, 1957, 12, 671--684.
El1:l:6it,J. and'L<\bpett, lJ.D,C.' '''reacbi,tig,R",search and
Cronhach'L.J. "couL'C'eimprovementthrough evaluation,"
:::'"~~:::'leis 'CoHe9~:..:-.:.e,:or<i, 1963, 64, 672-683.
Teacher Ediicatibn, Some Comments on
C6mpetenC¥-LiaSed
·.i··.'·· .. '.·.. . . . ., , ' . --
Teacher Education." Centre for Applied Research in
"Educa't16r.i, University of Eastimgua (mim'l0)' 1974··
Cronba~h, L. J. ~~JJeyc:Hjthe two·· disc:=..plines of scientific
~)sychology," t>Llerican Psychologjst, 1975, }O, 116-127. Festinger, L. ' 1\. Theory 'of .CognitivaDissonance •
Evanston, I11.inois: Row, Peterson, 1957.
Ctu!1b"ch,L:. J. and S'J])pes P. reds,)p.esearch for Tomorrow's
-_.8:::~.ools,
-~. -- DisCi1}l:ei-"n:::e;::d;;.'~I:.:.necui~"",,.,--
-~~ - ~ ..:'"<:;J:';';::;;.-..:.l:.~;Cl~'u~c.eac!:t::!:i;::o::!n. Toronto: Field<)n;JLandJ:!?<l:tlloni p.The Cost of Ci>L and CML: The
M~~1illan, 1969.
. F:lrianC:l:alEva1uation:of.NDl?CIU;.· Long9n' Council for
Ec1ucationaitTeChtlOlogy, 1977.
r;l

- 412 - - 413 -
Foster,·:J. "Lapj?in,M and. ~lright.,E • . ~'li;v",l.uati<)t:l,Plan,"
',.' r{a1:b.emati:cS'LiilioratoiY.j,>ro:Ject"~"'Pie%;Coll.!¥J<il .of;
.Commerce dino Technology. (mimeoj'i·Janli<i:rY '-:r~ 76. '
* Jamison, D., Suppes, P. and Ne11s, S. "The effectiveness
Gagne, R. M. The Conditions of Learning, 21:1<+., eOO:•....London,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
Ginsbul:g ,'H l":and' Opper, ,S·;';·,l?iaget!s. Theory.' of.Intel1ectual
Development. En\tlewoo.:!"Clif:fs, N,,',:J:..;,: ;;>:r".Il'l:!c..-Hall,
1969.
GlaSer" R. "Inst:ructionaltechnology ,and't!1e,.IIl"astlr<ilment 'of
lea:rhingoutcdines,"c.AmericanP.sych91.ogist,,: .Hl?:~; ~,
519-521.
'GlaSler, RP . "Cone<lptLea:rni1:lgand' . ConCeptTeachin.9:," '" In ,.
··R'.M .'Gagl)e;®c:W..J:,Gephar.t de4!'! .).,:Le<lrningRe!'!earch
and School Subjects. 'Itasca;±lnn6isiK~ac()c:k,~1968.
Hdbermas'j'J; 'KncMled$l<l and Human:. Intere!'!t!b. t,rans. 'JerElmy
. .. J.
;, , "'''
Shapirb, ·;t6nd6ri,caein~<1l1n!.';1.972,' i
Habermas":'J, :Theory,·and,cp,ractice,·ctrall$. , Jch ll ::viertel.
London:' ."He·inelllann,.197:4 .:.: .;.,
Regel, G. W. F. The Phenomenology of Mind, 1;:;aT+s.a: .D.iJaillie.
New York: Harper Colophon, 1967.
'i'
Hirst, P. "Liberal EducatlOn,<lndtl1<il N'flFU;~.()fY..noWiedg'e."
In R. S. Peters (ed.) '1'116 Philosophy of 'Education.
,"':Ox:ford,,'c Oxford.'University.? l?re!'!s,1973.
.!.<r:.'
Hooper; R,' Two Years Om. :'London' CqunciJ, JorEducational
TeChnoJ;ogy/19'7;!?, .
Hooper R. The National Development Progrannne in Computer
, AssiSted Learning: "l?irtaJ:: .Report, of. the DireCt9r, L.ondon:
C6unci l:' for Educational ·Tl'lchnQtogy... t97-7'J
Howiil ;'J •. AVM;') :}'Lea:r.ning" thro1;1gh •:LOGO, .'1} ,PapElr presented at
the SSRC Seminar on Computers in Education, 'uni.versity
of t!JatW~(:K;>(;oy"ptJ:¥Lg:'\l:l:¥1~~+6,:,1976. e Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Howe J. A. I.J. and Delamont, S. "T;;wards an 'Eva1uation Strategy
· · f b i.. cllI:l?rQg:t'~.", Di:onics ReseClrch- Rl'lports: No •. 15.
"13i6nics ReSeClrch Laboratory,y.·Scn091. .• QfJ1rf:.if;icial
Intelligence, Univarsity 9f Ediniiit.lrg!i;:,,'1974.• ", .
- 414 ..
Hunt, J. McV. The Challenge of incompetence and J::'overty.
Urbana, Illiliois: University of Illinois Press,1969 •
of alt.ernatiye instructional media; ,A survey,"
R<ilv:l:ew of Educational Research, 1974, .::!i' 1-67.
Jepsen,D. A. and Dilley, J.S. "Vocational decision-
making models: A reviet~ and comparative analysis,"
Review of Educational Research, 1974, .::!i' 331-349.
Kamara, A. I. "Cognitive Development among Scho()l"-Age
ThenmeChildren of sierra Leona." Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1971.
Kaptan,A, The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco:
Chari<'ller, 1964.
KelIllIlis, S. "Evaluation and the Evolution of Knowledge about
','
Educational Programs." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
uni,versityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1976.
Kesey, K. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
•
Kl1ifong, 'J. D. "The blind men ane the elephant (a modern
version~ ." ClWR Quarterly (Center on Evaluation
Development and Research, ,Phi Delta Kappa, Inc.,
D100mington, Indiana), Summer 1975, ~, 16-18.
Lappin, M. "The Survival of Innovations in Educational
Institutions." Paper presented at the symposium on
Research in Chemical Education in Scotland, Scottish
Regional Committee, the Chemical Society, Glasgow.
1976.
Laing, R. D. and Esterson, 11.. Sanity" Maaness'; 'and the
Family. Tavistock publications 1964 •.
Langer, J. "DisE;quilibriUllI as a Source of Development."
In P. Mussen, J. Langer and M. Covington (eds.) Trend~
and Issues in Developmental Psycholo<;,'Y. New York:
1969.
Lauri11ard, D. "CUSC Evaluatj.on Report." Institute for
EdUcational ~echnology, University of Surrey (mimeo),
May, 1977.
- 415 -
Leiser, D. "Semantic Structures and Arithmetical Systems __
Two New Cognitive Structures Identified." Unpublished McKeon, p.. ··'Philosophy andactiOIl, n Ethics, 1952, LXn,
, . i9';'lOO~"
Master's thesis, Colleg<3 of Education, UniversitY of
~llinois at Urb,,-na-Champaign, 1974.
!1b~lahC!n, H.· F.; A.riderson,JFS,A.ana Barton, J. C. "Student
Lindvall, C.,M. and C()1{,. R, C. "Evaluation as a, Tool in Respc,nse to Differen~iated Learning T,,-sks in CJ.'lL."
Curriculum Development: . The I?I Evaluatioriprogram." Paper presented atth~, SSRCSeminar on Computers in
AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, vol. 5.
Ed\l,catiolli uriiversit!rof· WarwiCk /Coventry,'July 14-16,
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. . - 1976.

Lundgren, U. P .~'rarile Factors and the Teiiching Process. .. M~ger, 'P..,,;': £!()p.arin5r Objectives' for Programmed Il1struction.
Stockholm: .Alm~yist and IUskell, 1972. Palo Alto,. Calif" ',. Fearon', 1962. '

March Q J. G. ~'I:~D;~~E-~l b:: as in social action 1 ,~ Review of

MacDonald. B. ,"EVall.lati,?IlahC theCbntrol of Ed\lCation."
In D. A. Tawney (ed.) Curriculum Evaluation Today: Trends Educat:ional··.~j:=·E:::-:~c~h
.... '1972i';4~ j"4~~-429,;
and ImJ?li2~t;:.9.!J.s...~ondon, Schools CO\lllcil ~esea:cch
Marx~ ~1. IL (ed.) ·!:'~"l.D()::.~j.es in Contemp~r;:rt}· E:~;~{Ghology•
Studies, l'ittc:r'liUaIl, 1976. (Originally presented at the
SSRC Research Seminar on Computers in Education, University . tun,lon: Mah;!.'j,t:&';i1963;
of Leeds, May, 1974).
Mattir ~a", 'H'~' <,pi ()!:.?~~.:t.:,-2:~~~c§gn~ t:io~'~ '" net <RepQt.'.t: "'." 9. 0 ,
~i91ogicaicoJ.lpU:f'213Lab0J:'iitozy ,
university·. of Illinois
MacDonald, B., AtlI:iI), R. ',JeriJ::1ns, D. R. and. Kemmis, S.
unuerstandinCJ computer dssisted tearnirig_. London, at urbana-Chanpa:lgn, November, 1970. (A briefer
McGraw-Hill, in preparation. .v<:!rsioh,ent:l. tled"~he'NeuroJ?hY$iolqgyof Cognition" ,
appears in l? L. GarVin (ed, j Cognition :r, Multiple ,
MacD0tlald, l:s., Jenkins, D., Kemt1l~s, S. and Tawney, D. View. New York: Spartan, 1970).
~', .
'llhe. Progr~J'il"e at r.i:rJ10: An "U~S'"':L Compan:L<?.~_J~.b 'Tw~ Years
·11at1.lrana;li. "(:ognitiveStrateiJies •.•• 'Ini1..· Abrarilovitz. et al
-01:.
i •
, ' . "
Ce~ltre
for ",',' ,,'

University of .e:ast Angll.a,

,"
l~pplied'Rec~arch,in
,'" ',,':,', ",

1975;
.'(,,,',::,' ,-
Bdurta"tion',
(eCili.Y'The cYl:>erneticsofcyberrietics_(D.C.L. Report -
No. 73.38). Urbana, Ill. : UiologicalComputer
MacDonald, Il. et al. "An educational evaluation of the Lab,?ratory, May,., 1974.
National oevelopcent PJ:'ogrffiQWe in Computer Assisted
L~ar:ping H, , Dr! tish JOl.xr.{I.al o:E Educational "Technoioi]Y p
[I
MiIle~,.C.'M'andl?al':1ett,i{ • . Up to the' ~iark:' A Study of
1977a, .§., No.3.. . . . the' Examination Game>':Lotidori,' .Society for Research
irit6tli<JherEducation, 1974.
MacDonald, B. et al. "Computer Assisted Learning: Its
Educationa~l;'qt(,mtial," Ch. 3 in R. Hooper, 'l,'he . Miller, G. A. (ed.) Mathematics .and Psychology.
National Development Pl:Ogramme in computer l~sSISted London: Wiley, 1964. ..
Leo.ming: Fi11al Report of the Director. London:
Council for Educo.tio.nal Technolos,'Y, 1977b, Millman, J,' "Crite.rion-Heferenced Measurement." In
. 'VI. J.
Popham (ed.) Evilluation. iriEdllCation.
MacDcllald,B. and Walker, R."Cas.estudy and the social Berkeley, Calif.i ·MCCutchan, 1974.
philosophy of educational research," Cambridge
Journal of Education, 1975, ~, 2-11. Murray, T.S., Cupples, It,\h,Uarbe'l',Ji.B., Hannay, D. R.
and Scott, D. D. ' '''Computer assisted learning in
MCClelland, J. E. "Individualised Instructi0tl : A.l?rojectidn." \llld,;rgraduate. m~dical teaching," The Lancet,
cr~:.. VII in Lawr:nce G. Thomas (ed.)· The l?hildSophical
February 28;,;1.976. -
R~(urection of Educational Research: The Seventy-First
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, O'Shea, T •. "computational. 146!~al?h0.rsJqJ: Childl:en." Paper
Part I, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972. - presented at the SSjtC' Relilearch semina.r ()n.fomputers in
Education, university of WarwiCk,' Coventry, July 11-16,
1976.
- 416 -
- 417 -
 r~lCt:te tiM.
",
I
I
l?apert, S. "Teach~ng Ch~:tdren, .TIt~nk~nCJ," ..•• i;>roceedinCJso;
the IFII? Conference on Computer Ec1uc:ation",llm$terdam, Polanyi, H. "Knqwing i;Uld being," . Mind, 1961., 70, N S,
1970. (Reprinted in Mathematics Thinking, Bulletin of . 458-470. R"printed. ~n)J.larjqri e Grene, (ed ~,- Knowing
the i'issqciation,ofTeIl,Che~s,q:t: Mathematics,
," " : . ""'/" "-- '.', . ,'. -,',.
1972,. No. 58).
: ':,,- < ...: .....:.:}
and. Being:. Essays by Michael pblanyL,.,.
Ch~ca90: Univers~ty, qfc;:b,iF1l.g0I?reSs ,1969.
l?arl"tt,.~. !I~1.ioqn,J:)."EVal;;at1pnas :illumination:
and
l'.Ne.wApproacht:o!=)1e S1:udy pf~q.uC:!'ltionall'rograms" , I?olanyi, M. Knowing and Being: ESSaySSy' Mtcl1ael',polanyi,
Occasional Paper 9, Centre for Research in the Educational eqitedbY Marjorie Grene. Chicago: Chicago
Sciences, University of Edinburgh, 1972. (Reprinted in Univer~,!-tyl?ress,1969.
D.l":'.I'qw~ey (",d~) CurriculU/llEvaluationToday: Tr.ends
and Impl:i.cations ••'L0ll.dolli, Schools Council Research Popper, K.Corije6t1.l15aSlandRefutad.qns :'rheGrqwth of
Studies, Macl1illan, 1976).' , , . . Scientific Knowledge, 5th edition. London:
Routledge anpKegan1'a1,11 ,W74.
pet:e:r:s;l'i. S. Ethics and Education. Londo",
George Allen and Unwin, 1966. l?oWers, W; T; "FeedbaCk, Beyond, behaviorism, Science,
26 January 1973, 179, 351-356 • .
Peters, R. S. and Tajfel; It. ';Hobbes andHull.·..- lJ.let:aphysicians
of behaviour," British Journal for the Philosophy of Powers, W.T • Behavior: The Control of ?erception,
. Sc~ence, 1957, MaY,Il:.,29, 30-44. Excer::>ted' arid London: WildWood House, 1974.
r<lprinted.as ,",That"eh<iv~ourismcannotAc::~oUIlt: for Human
Thinking,"~nL. 1,.. I~r1m",:t:l1lan (ed.) The ~iature and Scope Reitman,.wi R; 'Cognition and Thought: An 1nfo=ation-
of Social Science; ~ACritical i'l.nthology. !'l"ew York, ~Proc",ss,~ng' Approach. Nel~ York: IUley, 1965.
APl>leton,.<;:,mtllry-Crgfts, 1969. . .
'Rothkopf, E. Z. "Learning from written materials, An
Piaget, J. "Problems and ~~fu~ds." Intr~d~ctOry;'hapter in exploration of thea control of inspection behavior
J •. l'iaget 'l'heChild'sConceptionof theWcrld,tr s •
Jpan. a;td i\.ndl;'ew ToIlllillS9n,I,ondon,Routledge and Kogan an by test"'like events,". American Educational Research
Journal, 1966, 1, 24i-249.
Paul, 192<),; .
. \. "

Schwab, J" J. 1nvited address to Annual Meeting of the

Piaget, J. "The New Hethods: Their I?sycl1016g:l.dal Foundations. " National Associati<)l1 of .Research. in Sc:i,ence Teaching,
First publisl:ledin Fren,ch ill 1935.<. (Reprinteq. ~n Chicago, April 16-18,' 1974. (Since published in the
·j.~iaget,:scieri¢eofEducationandthe?SYChology of Journal for Research in Science Teaching, reference
the Child, trans. D •. Coltman; .London: Longlll!'ll1' 1971). unavailable) •
Piaget, .:r..T!leOr:ig~nsof Intelligence in Children, .tr<'lns. Skinner, B, . F. Science and Human IJehavior.
M. Cook. New Yorki' . ~1.W.N<jrton, 1963. (First New York, Free Press, 1953,
published in English in 1952).
Skinner, B. P., Verbal Behavior, .Nel' York:
1'iaget, t)io~?'1¥and Knowle<t~, trans. BeatJ;ixwalsh.
J.. Appleton-C",ntury-Crofte; •• 1957;
Chicago, . Universi.t:i'<,qfChicago;;>ress, 1971.

Piaget"J •. i;>sychologyand Epistemology" trans., Arno,ld Rosin.

smith, L. M;andPClhlifuU; r.,l'. "Educ!'lt:i,ohTB c1lnology and
the. Rural. liighlands; '.' AEro'> Monograph Series on Curriculum
New ·York, •.. viking l?r,"ss".:t971.. . Evaluation, Volume 2. Chicayo, Rand McNally, 1974.
Piaget;' J. s'tructural~, trans .chatlinah Maschler. London: Stake, R. E. "To Evaluate. an ArtsProgrCUll" .~n R.E. Stake
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971. (ed.) , Evaluating Ar~s Education, . A Responsive Aj?proach.
Pi<'lget,.J •. '''corumentSldnMathemilt±csEducatiol1'' columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Herrill, 1974.
'CohtempotaryEducatioIl,
.•......', ' -, .
'
1975,47, (Ho. 1).' -~

- 418 -
- 419 -
 Stake ,R.t::. '''rife Ca~e studY. Method;l.IiSo~i"lInCJUiry. ..
' . . centre fo~ Applie'd:ResearchinEducation, university
of. j;;",st· Ahglia(mimeol, December; 1975. •. (To be
repiintedinli.· Simbris'(ed~)'ToWards a Science of
the singular~ 1978, i.n press) •
Stanley' J~ C. 'icoritrolleClF'1el<:J. EXperimentS "lS a Model
for Evaluation." In Peter'·lI.· Rossi:and' Walter
William;;; (ads .l . , . Evaluating Social Programs.
. ·c.NewYork:Seridnar: Press, 1972·•.. : .
Strike, K. "On the.ixP·ressive potential of behaviorist
language" American Educational Research Journal,
"1974,11:, lo3'"120~·'···
-,,;.;.
Suppes, P. andMorningstar~ M. ."c()Illputer-assisted
. instruction,.. scienc~i 1969/.166., 343-350.
Supp.es,P. and Morningstar, M. ~omputer-Assisted .'
. rhs'tructionat Stanford,...1966;'1968, Data,' Model~.
a.nd Evaluation of the'l\.ri tfunetic Programs, '
New. .York, l.cadem.!.c
. '. ;
..
Press, 1972.
Tans~i, 1>. ,J; .(ed.) E:duciit.forial Aspects of Simulation.
.. LOlidon:" MCGraw"Hfl1, .1971: .
'l'/1wney ,D.A~ Simulation al'ld l~odelling in Science
'Computer AsSisted Learni'ng. TeChnical' Report No. 11,
National Developlllent pr09 ramn'ie'il'l Computer Assisted
Learning, 37~4l 11ortinierStreetiLondoni !4arch, 1976.
Tawney, D. A. "Computer Assisted Learning'in'An
Integrated Course." Ul'lCAL, Centre f()r Applied
Research' :in:' Education;.. Uni'lersity of· East l'.nglia.
(mimeo), May, 1977,'
Taylor, T. R. "Computer Assisted Liiarning in Clinical
Decision Making," : Chapter' 12 in R; Hooper and
I .• Tqye (eds.) computer Assisted Learning in the
United Kingdom: Some' Case Studies; Lbndon:
Cp\lllcilf6:;" EducatibtialTechnology ,1975.
Tolstoy, L. War and Peace, trans. C. Garnett.
London: Heinemann, 1971'.
Toulmi'n,S; HUDl~ understa'nding, Vole!:,· The Collective
Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton, N. J. ,
Princeton University Press, 1972.
- 420 -
Tyler,.R.·:W.i3asic!?rindiples of· Curriculum and Instruction.
Cl:licago: University of Chicagb:press ,1949.
Varela,F ;i;/; M"lt~~Cl;; fiTi. atidUtib"',R. 'j;\utqpoiesis,
TheOrganizatiqn.ofLiving syst€ll!ls;·Its Characterization
and a Model. Biological Computing Laboratory,
Univl')rsityof.IlliilOis at Urbana-Champaign,
BCL Report No •. 239:;,'no date.
von l~right; G.fi;· Explanation and Understanding' •
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971.
Wadding.ton, C. W. "The' Theory of EvolutibnToday;"
InA. Koestler:'andJ .R.: smyt!)ies (eds.) Beyond
Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences.
Boston: ·Beacon 1'ress·/1969. ".
Weir, . E" "Evaluating' Faculty ·as Teachers.. wi~oi.tt 'C.riteria· ."
Office for Instructional Rese/l.rch,. UniV?rsity.of
.I llinois a·t Urbana-Champaign, ..1976))."
l~i.lson,J,.R. Hall of Mirrors,. Lon,don''l'l1e Reprint
• Society; 1967 •
Windelhand, ,1'1.. Geschidlte una Naturwissenschaft.
Freiburg' '1894.
wittgenstein, L. Tractatus L09ico-P!i{l.;"sophiCUS, trans.
D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness.
London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.
Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations, trans.
G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Dasil Blackwell, 1974.
Witz, K. G. and Earls, J. "A Representation of Systems
of Concepts by Relational Structures." In Paul A.
Ilallanoff (ed.) Mathematical Models of Social and
Cognitive Structures, Illinois Studies in
Anthropology, No.9. Urbana, Illinois: University
of Illinois Press, 1974.
\'litz, K. G. and Easley, J. A. Analysis of Cognitive
Behavior in Children: Final Report. Grant No.
OBC-0-70-2H2(508) , U.S. Dept. of Health, :C:ducation
and Welfare, NCERD, 1972.
C.l
- 421 -
 I'll tz ,$., G.anCl.E",.".l,ey ,.. J. A. "Cognitive. Deen, S tructuie
.. arid SQiej1Qe'l'ioae1ling.• " . In. J<~G: l1it:i: anaJ"A. Easley,
Analysis of Cognitive Behavior in Children: Final
,Rej?prJ::. Grant.. liIo. OEC.,0-70- 2142 (508) , u. S .Pept.
"Qfilealth,
- -.....
Edw::'ltion
. ..
" "
and Me1fare,l>lCERD;
, _,.........
, .. ..........•.
., -, -
1972;'".
, .. , , , .•.. -' .. ,,,.- .. , , , ....•. "

Witz, K. G.and;J;;asley"J·. ik "Al\lew.Approach to' Cognition."

In L. Van dem Daele,. :J •. l?ascual"Leoneand. 1<. G. ~Iitz'
(eds.) l'Ieo-Piagetian I'erspectlves oncogl'-.it:ion ane
Develoj?1llenJ:.., :New York: . Acadom~c. Press,. 1976.

Witz, 1<. G., Goodwin, D. R. and Easley, J. A. "il. cognitive

model'.tor the,evaluation of, uniJ:.s of. instruction;"
,Instruction'll Science, 1974,.,1,..,307',326.

W:r:igh t; E; ana Lal?plri;Ji.l:"!olA'l'Ll\U:WhatriC> St:udEmts

Learn?" ?aper presented at the CAL 77, Symposium on
'. CompuJ:.eJ:"Assisted ,Learning' >in. the' 2iol(.:$i<:al, . 11edical
,and Phy"ical Scienc",s.andEngineering "
University of.surrey,- Narch3o'.,'lpril±-, ,1977.

Ziruan,.;:j'.- i?ublicKnowl<edge,:.: The SocialDimension of."

~cieE£.~' London: Cambridge University l?ress, 1968.
•
* Fre<edle .• R.'OcandCalcrdil,J. B. (<eds.) '.'. Language
Corupr<ehension and the Acquisitioh bt Knowl<edge.
New York: l"linston, 1972.

- 422 -
'f I
- 423 -
!
Ii
 ,
'>.RTICLES
Atkin, R. "Evaluation for Decision-Makers, Isomorphism,.
Pluralism, and Power" In H. Norris (ed.) , SAFARI Interim
?apers 2 - Theory. in l'radtice. Centre for Applied
R"search in Education, Uliiversity of East Anglia, 1977.
Jenkins, D. R. "CAMOL Routes for Student Teachers" Centre
for Applied Research in Education, University. of East
Anglia (mimeo), ~!arch,. 1976 •. (Originally presented as
a tape-slide sequence at the·APLET conferenCE>, Dundee,
Narc.'l, 1976.)
Jenkins, D. R. "Business as unusual. the skills of
bargaining and negotiation course at the I.ondon Eusiness
School." In George l1illis (ed.) Curriculum Criticism,
McCutchan, 1978.
Jenkins, D. R. and O'Toole, B. "r:urriculum Evaluation,
Literary Criticism, and the P2!,ra,curriculum". In
George Willis (ed.) .curriculum Criticism, McCutChan 1978.
. and Implications ~. I.ondoIl:. Schools. ~ollncJ.l .Research
Jenkins" D. R., Kemmis, S. and A£kin, R. "The UNCAL
Evaluation of the National Development Programme in
Computer Assisted Learning: I\n insider's critique."
In N. Norris (ed.) ?~~FI>.RI Interim Papers 2 .- '.rheory in
~!~~. Centre for Applied Research in Education,
Unhersi ty of East lUlglia. 1977. (An earlier version of
this paper by D. R. Jenkins and S. Kemmis was r>resented
at the Annual Heeting of the American Educational
Research Association, .1\pril 19-23, 1976, San Francisco) •
Kemmis, S. "The UNCAL Evaluation of Computer Assisted
Learning (a case study)". In R. E. Stake (ed.) The
Responsibility to Evaluate Educational Programs.--Centre
for Educational ResearCh and Innovation, Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1975.
Kemmis, S. "The Problem of Attainment, Private Knowledge
and PUblic Discourse". Centre for Ilpplied Research in
Educa'tion, University of East hnglia (mimeo), February,
1976. (Presented at the Annual Conference of the Dritish
Educational Research Association, University of Stirling,
September 1-4, 1975. A short version of the paper has
been published in Research Intelligence, 1975 l, 29-30).
- 424 -
K~=is,<; • "li:valllatirl<J¥i::ud"rit I.ea.r11i~gthrQllgACAL"• ~
News 4,· May, 1976 • Nat:ional.DeveloPiJIent Prq.:rramme in
Computer Assisted Learning, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
Londo~ ~11l~ 7ID.•
Kemm!s,. S '''l~ollloth".ticario. Idi6graphic ApproacheS to the
Eya;l.uationp(c0ltlPuterAssi~tedLearning". !,Jdurnal of
Curri.culum. Stud1es,.197S, VoL 10, No. 1. . (lUlearlier
version of this paper was· presented .at.theSSRCResearch
Seminar on Computers in Education, University of Warwick,
July 14.-16,1976) •
MacDonald, D. "planning a Project Evaluation." Centre for
1).pplied Research in Education, University of li:ast Anglia
(IllilliElo), 1973. (pre!ilE>nt"G at an NDPCALconference in
London, September, 1973).
l<IacDOnald, D. "From Project Evalllati0n. to PUblic Judgement."
:!:.imes Higher li:ducation Supplement, July 18, 1975.
'; ~ : ,,':
MacDonald, D. "Evaluation and the Control of Educat:LOn.
" ':'
"
<.' ....: • ,;
In D. A. Tawney (ed.) Curricul\llll li:valua~on Today, Trenas
Studies ,M<\.cMillan,;l.976 •.. (Presented at. ~e. SSRC Re~earch
S~inar on Computers in Education, UniversJ.ty of Leeus,
Ma.y ,i974).•
HacDonald, B. "The port:rayalOfl?<lfsons· as Evaluation Data."
In N.Norris .(ed.l SAFARI Interim Papers 2 - The?ry in
Practice. Centre for l.ppliedRes"arch in EducatJ.On,
uniyersity of East Ariglia, 1977 • . (presented at th~ Ar:nual
MeElting of the [werican .Edu.cational Research ',ssocJ.atJ.on,
April 19-·23, 1976, San Francisco) •
tlacDonald, 13 • "',nEducati.onal E~aluatiol1ofthe NDPCAL".
Eritish Journal of Educational'l'echnology, Vol. 8,
No.3, october, 1977 •.
NacDonald, ll. "Future Indicative,? .An Overview of Evaluation
in Education". (Presented at the C"!: '}7 symposium in. the
Diological, Medical and physical Sciences and Engine~ring,
University of Surrey, April, 1977). Centre fer APP~Led
Research in Education, University of li:ast Anglia (mJ.meo).
MacDonald" D. anc1 Kemmis f S. ~'Macro-Project and ~!eta­
Evaluation." Research Intelligence, 1976, ~, 36-39.
- 425 -
 13001<5 !

S and TaW' n
e" D. A.
';J;
R l~ellllllis , .• . earch in
HacDonald, D. and Stake, H. E. "The First Year of the Jenkins, D. .. _ AF··lieCl Res
Nati()nfllPrqg:t'amme: .~nIS$UeS l.'erspec;tive." Centre for t4acDon a1d , ~~,"e at~· cen: tre ~org{ia~ 1975.
;:\pp~p,4 R6$e",rch . III E<1iicatlon; unly"rsi ty of East The prog. . t" of East "fl
_ .'on universJ., • students
Educa~ , l HoW (;.0 -
Angli?-, (mirnE,o) July, 1974. . and ~lright, E •. -0. Learning.
,.'" "
. s, S • (with l\tkJ.n, ~. on comouter l\ssJ.ste centre for
MacDonald, D. and stake, R. E. "Confidentiality,· Procedure K~ vn? \'lorkint \?a ~r 1 l.'ublications No. Sf
East Ang lia ,
and.principl",s.of.th",.UNCAI. e"a.lllation with respect to ea· .n'" occasJ.ona 'versity 0
information .ak()~t .proje9tsintll", .• National Development Norwich Cl'-""" in Education, un.
Programme in. COIDlouter.l'ssistedLearninc{." .cent.re- for l\j?olied Research
'De"cemb er 197 7 • 0. Knig ht ," ,.,)
. Look,
-;--
Applied ReSear.ci'1i.n EdUCC\ti'0n, University of East Anglia, a e
(mimeo); Decei<Jber, 1974; . . . . .. . th ;,n<1erson, J. an computer Man g 9,
(
D R. WJ. . .' lance in - ,
Jenkins, ogress and Ba 1 publications f
no handS: Pr . ch CMm occas iona
0

l1acDonald, D., l,tkin, R" Jenkins, D; and Kemnis, .S. "The tion university 0
ca
Learnin,9... HOl:\'ll~ e"''1 Research in Ed.u f
National. D",Velqpm",nrl?r()9ramme in Computer "ssisted
Learning: '. i-tsr;ducationall."otential", Chapt",r 3 in centre f or Ap'" ,. J. ~ ..reparation
. l'a
East Ang J. , InP ters: An
!;()oper, R..The NDl"C.m:.: Final Reportoe the Director , _ 'ng through COIll:£.~ in En-ineering ,
London, 'cE'l'publications, D"cember 1977, (ed l LearnJ. - ' t · d LearnJ.fl
Tawney, D. AO t~ COllPuter l\ssJ.s '" t Tertiarv Level.
W;Mah()1I ,H. <mel J"i1ltins, D•. R. "Computer Managed Learning Intro,J.ucti on :1 th~ gcienCes l' a
.at the NeW' University of Ulster: An OECD/IMTEC manage-
ment analysis pal.,ei'." The Education Centre,New
University of Ulster ;
(mimeo),
--,
,-
1976

Tawney, D.A •..·.... "S.im."l<iu"harid Modelling in Science

computerAss+sj:.egr;earni\1q....Te9Plli9al R~port No. li.
Nati°nal·DeveloJ?mentPfOciramme~lf~omputerAssisted
Learning, 37··4i W:iruinerStreet, London WIN7RJ, 11arch,
1976. (An earlier version of this paper was presented
at ti1e caL'75.' .conference,
~", , . . .
O~ford,March 1975).

Tawney;' D. A~· "'~wew "Light in Ole 'Corners? Some Reflections

on Science Education cit TertiarY Lovel prc:>mpted by
observing some C);r. Developments." StuC:ies in Higher
Education, 3., (1) ';March, 1977.

'I'awney, D,. A."Col;l:'Juter ilssistedLearning in~n Integrated

Course ..(~efi~alund€!rgrad:tiate:v",ar. cours" , "Funda-
mentals of Fluid Mechanicsim(jlIeatTransfer", in the
Department of Mec.hanical Engineering, Imperial College) ."
Centr", for i<ppliec1R"s",arch in Education, University of
East Anglia (mimeo) , . 1977.'· .

_ (~27 ...

- 426 -
,