'Stephen' Kemmis
with
Roderick Atkin
and
Eleanor Ur1ght
Page
il10301,011
.;. iii -
~. H -
Page
Page
Chapter 5. ,How' CAL Simulations Work. 98
Chapter 6. How CAL Changes What I.e Think, Curriculum Chapter 8. Notes towards a Theory of Student-CAL
Evolution· and ForrnsofLife in the Hathe- Interactions. 280
mati cs Labcratory (Mll.TLAll)l?roj ect..
(stephen K_is and Eleanor Wright) 141 l\bstract: These notes present a number of
consid"rationsto be.taken into account in
.1\bstrac:t: . This highly speculative chapter developing, atheoJ:y af student-CAL inter-·
represents an attempt. todevelop.a frame\wrk actions. Several methoe,ologieal issues
f.romwhicha thorough-going critique of an are addressed, but the prime pUJ:'pose of
educationalinnovation,:can be generated. the netes· is to introduce and explore the
Throug'h,a: disCtiss'1on6f,one innovation in notions of clynamic structures (d-structures;
CliL,itillustrates how.eiifferGnt: "levels" of what is learned) and functional structures
curricul1.llll interrelate "in:the process of (f-structures,structured aspects of.the
curriculUlU innovation, The chapter contains learning context which create and constrain
seven sections:I Introduction: Curriculum q.>portunities for learning). Four general
development ?nd CAL innovation; II The Mathe- classes of f-structures relevant in dis-
matics Laboratory (I~TLI\.B) Project: 'rhe cussing the learning process in CAL are
emergence of a curriculum issue; III Evol- identified: those ,relating to subject-
utionaJ:'Y perspectives on the !~TLAll curriculum; m(.ltter, p(~dago9Y; operating systems and
IV One MATLM course: The Diploma of Manage" milieu.
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. - v -
- iv -
Page
Page
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
.- vi - - vii -
----------~~-""""""-"',"''",''"'%'''',
------_Tililmii'iii!¥iiiillI1fiii!'*!&!i%'!Il'
Iiii' i'Mmill';Ui,
• ""iIil,··O;',;.;'.
; £• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
....
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' learn?", is thereforeaddr,essedthrough a~lideyariety of'
first we recognise it. And these dimensions must be recen·· types of learning which go on when s,tudents l"Clrn from or
cUed to otir understandings of matter in light., Ileight through computers. The process of learning; as ,it manifests
'becomes mass, 'lllass, too, becomes energy. itself in these contexts ;,thus" takes on J)),any, different ,forms.
Perhaps it appears div"rs€> simply be,CCluse ,we call Clll, these
So i t is' ~Iith tile process' of learning'. , . "BecatiSe much of different processes ,by,thEl on""nClme "l€>arning". Perhaps,it
our visible ctilture is 'carried 'inwards,' much', of-the energy' appears, so, ·becatiS,e ,we, use' CI' vClriety of ,dif:eElr€>nt J;;inds,of,
of educational psycl1016gists over the last seventY"years has languag€>s (e.g .curriculum-theor€>tic, p,sychological", COlJl11lon-
been in tile investigation of verbal learning and tile sElnse)..to talk Clboutit '" Nev"rtheless ,prudely spEl1\l(ing, w"
acquis:l.tionof language.' "Because JUuch of action is perceived would wClnt, to say. th,Cltstudents ,alWaYS ,l"a;t"l},' from,.their
ininvestigatlng theacqu.i.siti6n of motor skills." At the ends 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
of the "verbal' spectrum"; learning psychologists have becj'un to
study co9nit.i.on conceived in terms of semantics, psycho- us , to . S,ee it in, te:r;ms qf other q'"erarching ',and 'iln:i'Wi'hq.
linguistics -and the naturE' of thought beforeit emerges in concepts liJ;;e thought, Clction,J;;nowledg",. Clnd"xperiElIlce. It
speech. And physiological psychologists have studied neUrology would be possible to proceed with our investigation Witil far
and biochemistry' to discover thewell-spriIlgs of human ,action. 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
One theme that dominates this book is that of knowledg.e language of those ponc:erned, with the, learning in, CP<.L nor the
beyond words and beyond mere movement. It concerns knowledge interests of developers, teachers I stud"nts and others make
• such concessions to complexity. A concern for the real-:life
and its relation to';xperience; In the chapters that 'follow,
we wi.ll attempt to go beyond the spoken word and the motor of educational practiceobligEls us,\:oadqpt naturalistic
movement and to reconcile· thcught and acticnina view. of methods', and to, cobble,\:ogethElr our an?lysis as best WE' can.
'.rhe. reader will jUdge for hi.rilself" whether the kites we the life th1'!t is educational practice, <;:an.we hope to educate
are constructing can fly. our understandings about it -- though in the process we
inevitClbly pose more problems tilan we solve.
- x .•
- xi -
computers as ,tools for' teaching and, learning. Hith a bUdget
0;;; E2~6 millions over,'fiveyears, it',has funded some thirty- the process of learning thrpugl\CAL., This ,collection of
five projects and studfes whichha,vedeveloped ,a wide range working papers is onedf the outcomes of that work.,
,of CALapp1ications; As,a 'delib'"rate policy, these applications
ofCAI.have taken place in real-life' contexts, of institutional I ami by training, an educational psychologist and an
education. Wi,th, f1f:wexceptions (.thoughleaving' aside pilot evaluator.. I CaIne to' the UNCAL evaluation of the NDPCl',L with
trials, of CAL ma:terials) these' <':ilL innovations ,have been intro- concerns about the natUre of learning und the value of
'(Juced intoa'variety of courses -"' ,the exploration of its convention~ieducationalpsychology for discussing questions
potentialhi'l.si'taken plac8,under reaLrather than artificial of educational significance. It is no surprise, therefore,
conditions. Without the simplification made possible by ,trying that I. found tli.e~~ concerns reflected in 'the CAL work of the
it out· i.Il artificiai settings, ,evaluators of CAL in ' the National Programme; But neither ,is it a surprise that these
National 'Prog-raJllllle interested in infO%1lling judgments about it concerns existed within the National Prograllll!le -- they are
are thus obligedtoconfroIlttheeomplexityof educational endemic to educational'development,and'evaluation and
i.ssues surrotiIlding it; to ignore the complexity Or to reduce repeatedly found expression in the c,oncerns of pari:icipunts
it by artificial means is to give up the task of evaluating in the Programme.
cAI.as:itappears in the National 'Prograii,me.
Educati.onal evalua.tion is a 'young but fast-growing field.
. ,.
The work presented here has been' ciWriedoutas part of It may s1.1rpris," some.r:eaders to ill.sC:over thi\i:./iri spite of
the UNCtlL (understanding.ComputerAssist"d'Learning) independent its thirty""yearhist6ry' as a recognisable specialism, no
educatiortaI 'evaluation of tlleNDPCAL. 'The UNCIIL' eValuation conVentiol\alproced.ures existfprjoirtt.1ycromnrehEmqing the
nas spanned £6u:i:years, and is charged with evaluating the many levels at which the'process 6fcurriculuminnovation
NDPc.~ as a meChanism for educationalinnovationi the politics takes place. InnOVations in CAL are no <lxception.
and process of aaol(tion of.innovation'andthe educational
potential of CAL, We define its work iriterms of conceiving., Consider the f~l.l.o~in<Jmatte~s.,i'll1of which roust be
obtaining and commulticating information, for· the .guidance, of taken intoacc:oUrit in reaChin,:]' all evaluation ofC1L work
decision-makers. 'The evaluation of student learning through produceClunder the auspicespf 1:I)e National 1'r6gramme. Thirik
'CAL is oIle aspect of m,CliL's work. theriof how an evalutltionmight proceed which can take account
of the diversity of prol:>l"'11ls they pose.
Witl1in UNCAL, I have had a special'responsibilityforthe
problem of student learning. For three of, m"CAL' s four years, - CAL is nota unitaryed~c:<lti.9Ilaltec1ulblogy i it is
incredibly diyerse. I,n the. NationalprogJ:'amme , CAL
lhaire had £'1e opporttiIlityto observe ana to make sense of appli.cations~pan sU~~9imensions asea~cati~nal sector
(.schools, further and higher education, 'the armed
- xii -
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 3 -
computer assisted learning (CAL) is an enormously exciting
technology for education but too often the use of technology in
is not defined as unitary, it may still make 'some'sense to evaluate
education has led to a technologisation of our view of education, and
'instruct:l9nal provision in terms of the summ~d di~c~epancies between
a componentisation of the educational process in the notion of
Stlldentgoals a.nd performance, but the model quickly becomes un-
'instructional design'. It remains an open question whether the
language and the technology of CAL can avoid fragmenting the subtlety
workable.' (I~ students Canqef:lrie their purpos~~sUfficiently
and the coherence of the educat:lorialprocess. 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-
Thecllrrent rhetoric of'iridiVidml1isation, especially in the
matter/performancediscrepancy~utuponafuiie:r:,descl:'~ption of the
U.S.A.,'ha.s contribut:edto the techJ'iologisation of our view of
learninc;:rp:r:ocess i:t:self. In sho%,t, the, technol,ogic:alviel~ of
education. Given defilled learning objectives arid learninc:fsequences,
education ,as a series,of instrUCtional t:t'ea:t:ments,whichar~ '~pplied'
tI,e problem of individualisation is one of match:lng instructional
to students PFedisposesthe,evaluator towards
, 'nomothetic' methods,
sequences to indi'llidualdifferences. Technology maybe employed in "" . " .::
' .... ' " .
here is to respond to each student's Clwnpurposes. In this view, social science '19~t the terms have comEl to p",used ~n psychology
there maybe as'many learning sequences as there are stud~nts. In the (e.g.l\.llport'/Marx, 1963, p.42), 'nomo:t:he;ti9,' approaches are those
one case; individUalisation is conceived'as optimisirigstudent concerned with establishing laws, (based 011 the model of the
performance towards given aims (a t:echnologyof education), in the Naturwissenschaften; approximating natural science methods) and
other as optimising instruction towards students' own aims, (perhaps 'idiographic:' approaches are those conCerned ,with,the intensive
st,-!dy of,i.ndividuals (based on the mode,l of Geistes~lissenschaften
with the use of technology in education).
or he:r:meneutic, sciences; approximating the methods of the
'U11derstanding' or interpretative sciences like history). In the
These two views have markedlydifferentimplicationsror the
evaluation of student learning • The success or failure of' 1940sand '50s there was some debate about the relative strengths
of the twoapPJ::oaches, especially with resp,ect to the develoPment
.
instructiori' under the first model can be defined in terms of the size
of ,theory in clinical and developmental p~ychOlogy, but it seemed
of the discrepancy between intended and actual student performance.
This, essentially; is the modeFof evaluation outlined by Tyler in to end in ,a s,talemate, the general view was simply that each had
its place. Melvin ~arx adopted this view" but (rather cunningly)
his landmark paper for educational evaluation (Tyler, 1949). W1,ere
students are not expected to attain common objectives, however, the collapsed,idiographicapproaches pack towards the nopothetic:
- 4 - -- 5 -
There does not seem to be any way around ~~e proposition, All th~sethinkers (the anti-positivists) reject the
that science is concerned with generalities and abstractions, methodological monism of positivism and refuse to view
and that'these depend upon comparisons of many cases; However, the pattern set by the exact natural sciences as ~~e
it may be suggested that more ,attention be paid to nomothetic so~e and supreme ideal for a rational~~de~standing of
problems,involving int~a-organismic development and reality. Many of them emphasise a contras't between those
organisations. Principles of this nature are necessarily sciences which, like physics or chemistry or physiology,
based upon ,similarities among individuals discovered as aim at generalisations about reproducible and predictable
a result of int~nsi;re study of a numberof individual phenomena, and those which, like history, want to grasp the
subjects. They may be considered as complementary to the i~dividual and unique features of their objects, Windelband
more common laws of' general behavio,ur functions, which are c:cined the label ."nomothetic"fQr scieIlces, which ",e",roh
ordinarily based upon .a large number of less intensive fo" ] f\WS , and "idiographic" for the descriptive study of
observations. ' (p. 312, italics in origirial) • i,U.1, v·;.duality. "
Marx's view of $Cience is rooted in the highly positivistic view of 'J'heant~,-positivists also attackedthe positivist vie,~
of ",'C;'lanation. The German historian-philosopher Droysen
psychology current duiing the 1950s(when his paper first appeared) .. ,a;"""r,·,·3 to have been the first to, introduce a methodologici'il
and literally does not countenance the philosophical foundations of di 'C ~.c'tomy •whi,ch has had great influence. ,He coined for it
the "~'lles explanation and understanding, in German Eklaren
the idiographic approach. ~hus it comes as no surprise that his and Verstehen. The aim of the natural ,sciences, he said, is,
view of idiographic methods is that they are pre-experimental, to explain; the aim "f history is to understand the phenomena
which fall within its domairi. (p.S)
allowing induction of similarities from many individual cases to
provide a foundation for the more 'common" (that is, more widely- Lat'2r" von Wright points out that
accepted) nomothetic approach. Marx's view of the idiographic It would surely be an illusion to think that truth itself
approach cah J:)e<cbntrastedw.ith that of Piaget (though piaget has unequivocally sided with one of these two opposed positions.
In saying this I am not thinking of the triviality that both
never, to my kribwledge, characterised his method as idiographic). 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
Piaget'" 'clinicalmethod'forllluiated by 1929, provides an reconciliation ano. of refutation,- even, in a-sense; remoyed
example of the idiographic approach, and his theory of genetic from truth. It is built, into ,the choice of primitives, of
basic concepts for the whole argumentation. This choice,
epistemology demonstrates the'implications of adopting it. In one one could say, is "eXistential". It is a choice of a point
sense it does exemplify a nomothetic approach (in Marx's sense) of view which cannot be further grounded. (p.32)
"involving intra;'organismid development and organisation", but the It therefore seems that to argue for one or other of these approaches
nature of Piaget's'general theory of development' is fundamentally is a sterile exercise: in time, surely, the 'defeated' alternative
at odds with the view of psychological laws proposed by Marx, 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
At its'root, the differencebetweert the views is concerned with these" approaches; it is to determine how the real, current issue
the nature of generalisation, the nature of explanation, and the of evaluating student lei'irning in different curricular contexts is
to ,be handled. 4
>
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
- 7 .•
,. 6 -
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 (1) Does tile unit recognise natural components, which are
sub:components.of OU~ own~ Or,d08$ it cut across
curriculum evaluation has be~ri provoked at least in part by tile short- components and by this disregard for natural cognitive
comings of nomothetic method~ in the measurement of student learning. processes and their natural order (x is a pre-requisite
for y) make. learning unn"cessarily difficult?
Curiously the sudden change in the tide of evaluation theory has left
the prcblem of evaluating student learnlr;.g sti-andeaabove the waterline. (2) Does the unit give the background knowledge of the
child a chance to COille into play?
Those adopting 'the 'new' methods either give scant attention ..to the
problem, preferring instead to concentrate on political or contextual (a) Which of the specific interactions of
background knowledge with. tile material are
factors related to curriculum decision-making, or else they treat actually fostered in the instructional situation?
student learning as it were anachronistically,. using the 'old'
(b) To what extent are the different possible
metilods. In general, the hermeneutic approach has not been applied interactions of background knowledge with new
at tile student learning level. 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 critical issues for idiographic evaluation are the theoretical
The meth9dology of idiographic evaluation is, to date, fairly problem of conceptualising the nature of learning itself (that is, as
poorly conceived. It lacks ~le \<idespread theoretical ,and methodo- a process), and the fundamentally-related methodological problem of
logical support enjoy"d by the more,conventional nomothetic paradigm developing 'I:,"chniques for eliciting and, analysing the cognitive
and it has a kind of vagueness or lack of specification \<hich make it structures e11gaged during the learning process. T"chniques of
seem unreasonably subjective or sloppy to ,those \<hose allegiance is observation, a~alysis and interPr.etation,rel"vant for idiographic
to the natural ('precise') sciences model in evaluation. As Parlett evaluation include various typ"s of proq?sss,tudies and the methodol()gy
and Hamilton (1972) have argued wi·th respect to illuminative of. structural analysis •. Relevant types 9f ,proc,,'?s studies in"lude
evaluation, idiographic evaluation is not a "standard methodological
package n •
- 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 , ,
.. 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
", '
- 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.
- 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 NOTES
8
As this paper has attempted tS'show, idiographic'methods may fill Much of our current work is in this area. On the basis
of informal analyses already completed, we have been able
a gap created'by the shift from'natutal science to hermeneutic models' to develop a typology of student-CAL interactions which
in evaluation. 'rhroligh thedevelopmeht of ij.1iographic methods for the' allows us to make inferences about student learning in
the CAL context (see '~he Educational Potential of CAL:
evaluation of$tuderit learning, compatible with case-study and por'trayal Qualitative Evidence about Student Learning", in this
methods at the macro -level, it may be possible to inform decisibn";mak~rs volume). Through the typology. we may begin to evaluate
the potential of CAL across the range of ~tional
about th'" problems and possibilities cfcuiriculum innovatioris in Programme-sponsored projects.
diverse contexts and to inform judgements oft:heir value In the
9
A lucid case for the evaluation of teaching without
centrally-importarit donlain of' student learning.
criteria (but through justification) has been presented
by Weir (1976).
- 21 -
- 20 -
II
eDUCATIONAL,PARADIGMS FOR CAL *
- 2< -
- '23 -
II
- 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, Provision of opportunities for Educational means, Manipulation of student inputs,
discovery and vicarious experienc00 finding metaphors and model building.
Role of computer: Simulation or information-handling. Role, of computer, Manipulable, space/fie1d/ 'scratch Piid' /
language; for creating or articulating
AssumPtions; (Hidden) model of significant models, 'programs, plans or conceptual
concepts and knOWledge structure; ,structures. ,
theory of learning by discovery.
Problem-oriented theorybf knowledge"
Idealisation/Caricature, At ,best, the computer is seen,as general cognitive theory.
creating a rich learning environment;
at worst, it makes a 'black box' of Idealisation/Caricature; At best,the computer is seen as a
the significant learnings. tool or eduCiitional medi,um (in the,
sense of 'milieu, not 'communications
N)PCAL Project closest CUSC (Computers, in the Undergraduate medium'); at '<erst, as an expensive toy.
to the pariidigm, Science C urriculwn) which attempts
through simulation to- make complex N)PCAL-related Project Cambridge nAf,~p (Deparonent of Applied
ideas accessible to students. Each closest to the paradigm, Mathematics and Theoretical Physics)
~imu1iition package is built around where the use of the computer as an,
a mathematical model of a physical alternative 'to analytic methods
system, as the student manipulates simplifies the process of mathematical
it, he is expected to develop an investigati~:"), allowing stud~nts to
intuitive understanding of the model. construct mo'de1s ofpnysica1 systems
This understanding helps him to and test the assumptions of the models
appreciate the theoretical by computing. their conseq~ences.
-
. ..
- 26 -
- 27 -
distinguish between authentic labour (valued learning), and. 'rhis fourth paradigm we have calle.d. emancipatory. Insofar as . it has
inauthentic labour (activities which may be instrumental to valued any coherence, its key concept ~s the notion of reducing the
learning, but are not valued for their own sake). The justification inauthenticity of student labour. Its curriculum emphasis and
of some forms of CAL is that it enhances authentic labour, for educational means are derived from the primary paradigm with.which it
others that. it reduces inauthentic labour. Much curriculum reform is associated - for it never appears in isolation except as an impulse
and development is of the first kind; making difficult ideas more to curriculum reform. The role. of the computer is calculation, graph-
accessible, making learning more· 'relevant', or more fUlly engaging plotting, tabulation or other information handling. Examples c of thi.S
students' own interests. Examples of CAL which attempt to enhance emancipatory paradigm in CAL include ~apier mathematics (where the
the authenticity of the learning experience include CUSC simulations computer is used to carry out otherwise tedious calculations and
(as in the.Schrl\di1'lger equation package which allows students to where the curriculum reform away from the computer is.of a revelatory
interact with the model and thus to learn its characteristics), the kind, emphasising mathematical concepts rather than techniques),
Glasgow Clinical Decision-Making Project's packages (whio~give , the Suffolk ·Local aistory Classroom Project (where the computer
students a 'feel' for the problems of diagnosis and patient manage- tabulates census data for the pupils and 'fhere the curricular reform
ment normally only achieved in clinical work) and CPTL (where away from the computer is conjectural, emphasising history as
students learn to write programs to solve physical problems). hypothesis-testing and the use of evidence) .. the'Imperial College CAL
work on fluid. flow and heat transfer (a part of the.ESP Project,
The three paradigms we have already outlined are generally compatible where the computer; allows nmnerical solutions to be found for real:
with the. idea of enhancing the authenticity of student labour. The life problems which are analytically-intractable, and. where the
instructional paradigm does so by leading the student through a body curriculum reform away from the mac~.ine is more revelatory, elaboJ:'ating
of subject-matter in a rationally-organised way, the revelatory by the notions of fluid flow and heat. transfer in more complex and
bringing the student to the 'heart' of a problem and helping him to industrially-interesting situations), and some of the CALCHEM work
feel its significance, and the conjectural by allOWing the student to (where the computer reduces the inauthenticity of the learning situation
explore the ramifications of his own ideas. by plotting graphs or carrying out calculations for students as a
separate but complementary role to its enh<mcement of the. authenticity
The computer is peculiarly suited to reducing the amount of inauthentic of the learning experience in enhanced tutorial CAI,). The work of the
student labour, however, and many CAL applications explo~t the CALUSG Project in Geography which produces di:Eficult-·to:-generate
information-handling capacities of the computer to improve ~e,quqlity quantitative data for classroom use might also be considered emancipatoX'Y,
of the learning experience by taking the tedium out of .;omekinds of but is as much a saving of labour for the teacher as for the student.
tanks.
Whether or not we wish to dignify thi.; emancipatory interest of.
The idea. of using CAL. for this purpose suggests the possibility of a curriculum refonn with the label 'paradigm', there can b", no doubt that
fourth paradigm, one which is yet unarticulated in detail. It.is by it is a compelling impulse. The ~ info~mation explosi,on,' has emphlisised
no means as coherent as the three primary paradigms, perhaps it is a the problem £or teachers of how to reduce the compleXity of; subjec~
kind.of inverse image which can appear in association with any of the matter for students and has posed the companion problem of finding
others. criteria by which the reduction can be justified. common criteria for
- 28 - - 29 -
justiifyingthe inclusion of a topic in the curriculum are .its Instruotiona2: In the l'ational Programme, .one can find examples
significance (to teachers or·othersubjeCt matter authorities) .and of 'adaptive~tutorial' CAL which require more adaptation of the student
the utility of the· information (to students or their prospective to the machine pedagogy than of the pedagogy to the learner. Even
employers) •. The potential of Cl'Uias a labour~saving device ..which where the adaptive-tutorial materials are mUlti-branching, the student
can reduce the amount of time students spend (or ,rather, .waste) will usually follow a path through the sUbject-matter designed for him
in inauthentic labour·maythus be welcomed by teachers as a way of by the developer; even where a range of alternative responses is
easing the complexity problem. As many have argued for the hand catered for by the machine, the materials impose their developers'
calculator, CAL may divert stUdents from tasks· not valuable in them- questions and their developers'· logic. Unlike advanced artificial
selves (and which:are understood· in principle) to other, more intelligence (AI) applications in education (for example, Carbonell's
highly-valued activities.· SCHOLAR system), adaptive-tutorial CAL is unlikely to allow the student
to pose his own questions· or follow lines of his own interest. And
These three or four paradigms are essentially ways of thinking about student:lnterest is important in the justi.fication of irist~uctional CAL:
the'ourrioulum tasks ·faced by the CAl. developers. We have discussed motivation'based on feedback reiriforcementmay be insufficient in
.. .
them in terms of the place of computer-based education in the,wider
"
.- 31 -
- 30 -
process
. as one of revelation -.
revealing
' ,expert clinicians' models
' ,-.,.'
. . ' , '
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
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 that they defied implementation except in diluted forms, student-
terminal interface softl~are so' complex as to demand akinc't' of
interrelations between ideas and their objects! it may be. difficult
for students to think otherwise about perspectives. '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.
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 -
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
COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING;
"difficult" learnings. They are confronted dailY-with the problems
FORMS OF THOUGHT AND FORMS OF ACTION * 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 The problem for the evaluator of CAL is thus· doubly difficult~
is to be, le;;lrned .in. Ci'L., Startingfl'om the premise First, teacher-developers of CAL often use the computer to pursue
that CAL developers often use CAL in an attempt to
inculcate "high-level" learnings, 'the chapter examines the learning goals they value most highly (though, it is true,
tw() broad categori9is .ofeducationi",l goals purslled. some see CAL and CML as means to slough off some of' the more menial
through "special purpose" CAL materials. These are
forms of thought (based on dynamic models of subject- tasks of teaching-- for drill and J?X'a.Ctfce, a.cquisitioll of low-
matter; where what is to be learned is a dynamic
level content and the like). For the evaluator, dealing \1ith. these
idea) .and forms of action (based on practical
situations demanding wise judgment or prudentaction)~ 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
* Written in October, 1977.
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
"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
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' •
- 37 -
special problems of teaching. and learning are found, And Crudely speak!ng, ,we can identify two sorts of .learning contexts
students to achieve specialised understandings in .content- for .which.. C1'.L developers .have produced materials. In terms of
areas where a practically-feasible computer-based transaction what is to be learned there are, on the one hand, contexts where the
between the student and the subject-matter to be learned can be developer has a clear idea of the knowledge he expects the student
designed. While the NDPCAL has funded both. kinds of applications, to learn through interaction with the materials, anddn the other,
the emphasis of the Programme would appear to have been on contexts where the ic'lea cannot be 'easily transmitted in language or
"specia1"purpose" CAL. This is so partly for historical reasons symbols and·where: the ·studentlQustbe thrust into a situation to
the people funded by the NDPCAL were, in general, innovative master it by accumulating practical experience. In'the first kind
teachers wanting to employ CAL for their own (special) purposes of context,'weshall<:say that what is to be learned, is forms of
rather than educational technologists with general interests in thought,andim,the second, .forms of action.
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 .. It ,must be mi;lde clear at the outset that forms of thought and
development of basic materials which often turned out to be f",rms of action' are' never. entirely separable - .. they:area1ways
educationally uninspired,
. even pedantic (thus providing poor
. , .. ... ..' inte.rtwined.~ever.the.1ess,developers make' the' distinction between
eXffiup1es of the pOtential of CAL), and, on the other, it wanted these two forms of learning outcomes'in the senses that what is to
to avoid the mistakes of "rational planning" (though it. adopted a be learned 'will be more .or l$sS clearly expressed in the materials
kind of rational-planning, managerial model nonetheless) under and that·bhe:materia1swi11.be focussed ,at one extreme on the
which innovations had been developed in vacuo then disseminated to expression of. an idea or on. the.otheron the experience ofa
a market of pOtential users who had not been involved from .the situation which demands practical action.
start in the development process. Xn short, the NDPCAL was
impatient to develop interesting educational applications of the We should also distinguish between these substantive forms
computer which could be assimilated into institutional provision (concerning.vlhat is' to.be learned) and pedagogical forms .,-the
on a regular basis and at reasonable cost (Hooper, 1975, p.17). strategies .employed 'by'. CAL developers and 'embodied ·in the design of
a package. :Some CAL materials 'are directly instructional, others
Given these background considerations, we are now in a emp1oythe.strategic devioesof1earning by discovery (where the
position to say something abput where the "special-purpose" style student works on the materials until the meanings hidden in them
of CAL is appropriate -- at least .on the basis of the deve1(jpments are "revealed"), and yet other materials emp1oy:tha. devices of·
spawned in this country by the ~DPCAL. Our aim is eXigesis, not inquiry learning (where the student imposes order on disparate
prescription this analysis sets out some of the characteristics pieces of data .to reach .his own. unders,tandings .about .the •field) •
of two kinds of "special-purpose" applications of CAL in the The burden ·of this' paper. will be "concerned with. substance' rathar
National Programme in terms of the apparent goals of their than pedagogy --.,here CAL is appropriate rather than how.itworks
developers and users, and in terms of the kinds of learning contexts to "produce"learning; But questions·of·substance.andpedagogyare
they have created. These characteristics emphatically do not also intertwined.-.. the form of interaction: by which a.package· .works
constitute a set of criteria or. specifications for successful will influence the'form of what is learned from it. Some pedagogical
applications of CAL. strategies work batter for learning forms of thought, others work
bette):' . for1e"rning 'forms of 'action.
- 38 -
- 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).
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 -
In learning such forms of action, the "student submits himself
quasi ..practical experience, without some of the costs. In the
to the life-',tasks of the professipnal as these appear in quasi"real
process, the student may develop some of the sensitivities of the situations 1;ndby imitation or identification with the practitioner
uprofessionalt>~
makes.those life-tasks his own. In doing so, he may master some. of
the techniques and the sensitivities which help to build. practical
Packages concerned with the development of clinical judgment experience. It might be said that the user of one of these packages
in medical students (emphasising decision making skills) exemplify will develop in his own experience dynamic models of wise practice.
CAL concerned with forms of action. Through working on computerised
case studies of patients, students can try to ~anage the treatment Here; as in'CAL concerned with forms of thought, the process
of a patient and learn (without the'~ost of suffering to a real of learning is 1; process of differentiation of experience. In this
patient) some of the sensitivities of the experienced general case, however, the differentiation develops partly through the
practitioner which together constitute "clinical.'judgment". differences in the eX1;mples or situations (cases, contexts) in
which the professional. must work and partly through the development
Such packages contain matrices of da£a or models of systems of sensitivities to the interrelationships between appear1;nce,
which impose structure on the interactions of the student with. the
circumstance.,' action and consequence in practical life'.
subj ect:-matter • The fraJIleworks for action elnbod:i.~din the packages
direct the student's attention to certaillfeatures of practi~al Here,' too, situations are often idealised for the StUdElOt
situation~, focussing experience and providing ieedback on the
they may emphasise especially relevant data (even if only by
consequences of actions taken. The student 'learns toi'read"
failing to include irrelevant dat1;) , they may focus attention on
situations by acting on them and interpreting the consequenses of
especially salient courseS of action (perhaps by explicitly
action. offering alternative courses of action or construing decisions in
ways which make some considerations more important than otilers),
By exposing the student to quasi-practical situations, the
or they may present the "ituationsas simple types rather than
CAL develope:.; hopes to develop in the 'student the forms ot' action
co",plexes of competing considerations, irregularities, and the
characteristic of a profession. Though theoretical ideas .,ill' like. So the student learns by beginning with simple cases, and
undoubtedly be relevant 'to understanding the: situation at hand,
develops the s-ensitivities of the practitioner by accumulation of
tile student must develop the sensitivities of the practitioner in
examples and recombination of patterns of fami."i.iar features.
order to deal with it adequately, theoretical principles alone
What the student learns is an llintern,aV~ counterpart of life~
are usually insufficient for wise action. The student develops
situations witilassociated life-ta3k~. And again he learns by
these sensitivities almost as key examples. -- as rules of thumb,
participation -- by doing.
heuristics, experimental approaches to problems, and the like.
(Polanyi, 1969, speaks of tile medical student learning the'
CAL packages which develop forms of action also often fall
"physiognomy of a disease" its characteristic patterns which
into the "simulation" category, though here the simulations will
may not be expressible in, say, criteria of diagnosis but never-
often be "black-box" simulatL)ns (in Tawney's, 1976, phrase).
tileless form recognisable patterns to the experienced diagnostician).
The model underlying the simulation is often hidden from .the
- 45 --
- 44 -
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.
- 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,
- 50 -
- 51 -
test performance. This is so because such a typology is focussed
sharply on the learning process ratlterthan on the more remote
e
such tests will be equivocal about the merits of CAL, and partly testing process. We hope that the typol09ywili pr?videthos
because they will rarely have been constructed to be valid tests concerned about the educational potential'of CAL with reliable
of the particular kind of'learning which the CAL experience pointers towards the question of ultimate 1nterest~~the nature of
promotes. To get to the heart of the issue, we have therefore learning sough't'and attained through CAL _~'eventhoughtheultimate
decided to focus our attention on the CAL experience itself, and' answer is beyond our grasp we cannot ,.ith ally certainty fix 'the
to attempt to formulate a scheme which will allow us to describe nature of learning itself. To the 'extent that we achieve th1saim,
the kind of learning that goes on when the student and the CAL it will be possible to speak more precisely about the aspirations of
technology come into contact. In this way, it should be possibie CAL developers in the area of student learning and abOut the evidence
to provide valid evidence about the educational pbtential of CAL, they adduce to support their claims for the efficacy of CAL.
whe'ther the tests used to assess' student attainment at the end of
a course are valid or not.
A TYPOLOGY OF STUDENT-CllLINTERACTIONS ,. PRELI[~INARY CONSIDERATIONS
To achieve this, we have developed a typology of student-CAL Each of the "types" in our typology 'referS 'to a kind of inter-
interactions. The "types i• themselves are loosely derived on the action between a student and an iininediate CAL context. \'1hat
one hand from the research literature on learning, and on the distinguishes the' types is the kinds of opportunities they offer'
other from the claims made in justification of CAL. By grounding for learning, different kinds of interactions will create different
the theoretical categories of the researcher in the language used opportunities for learning. The typology distinguishes different
by those who make claims for CAL, it becomes possible to examine "operational definitions" of learning via 'CAL (i-e.different
the claims made about learning via CAL in r8lation to the kind of realisations of the learning process in' different student-CAL inter-
iearni~gactuaily going on (at 'least to'the extent that the typology actions) ',1hich may thEm be compared with the "rhetorical definitions"
allows us to describe the learning accurately). of CAL developers' claims about student learning.r The typolOgy thus
provides oIle perspective from which claims about student learning via
Since we cannot look inside the stuclents' heads (Le. for CAL can be evaluated, it makes explicit what kinds of learning might
cognitive structures) to find qualitatively different kinds of be claimed on the basiS of specific 'student interactions with the CAL
thinking which may provide the basis for a typology of learning,
technology.
we must develop it on the basis of what the students do while
that is, at student-CAL inter-
engaged in the learning process units of analysis
actions (Le. activity structures). (rhe achievement testing approach In using the typology , i t sho:J".d beke'pt in mind that 'inter-
looks at what the student does after the CAL experience, when action, like cognition, is a continuous process; it is not episodic
performance will be contaminated by all>sorts of extraneous factors). (like exchange). When we refer to the learning process, we have in
Strictly spe~cing, a set of types developed on this basis tells us mind this notion of continuity; most often, when educational
less about the nature of learning outcomes than it does about the psychologists refer to student attainment, they treat learning as if
nature of the interaction (activity structures), but even so, the it were episodic or discontinuous.
inferences it allows about the nature of learning (cognitive
structures) will be more reasonable than inferences on the basis of
- 53 -
- 52 -
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·· . ",. .
- 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
- 59 -
- 58 -
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 .,,, ..
- 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,.
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, of "prQfes$ional historians (which look ,like Type D
the student works in-an extremely "open") field of enquiry: he is interactions) , but he is writing new history
not working towards convergent solutions which are, entirely within himself ,notlearning wha't other,s have, discovered.
the known structure of a discipline; From his own, point of view,
he is pushing back, the boundaries of the fie~,dand going beyond Example 8 (Type E) ,
what is known. He is testing his own hypotheses, developing his In applied mathematics and physics (e.g. in the
own methodologies and, drawing conclusions based on his, own 'work. CamJ::,ridge Department of Applied Mathematics and
Type E interactions look like genuine research, 'not jUst exercises Theoretical Physics or the, University of surrey' s
on the content ,and methods of the field as it is already,known. Co~putational PhY$ics Teaching Laboratory project),
It is both substantive and methodological -- from'the student's a $tudent creates models fOr physical phenomena
point of view, it involves the construction of new' knoWledge hopingtp develop new ways of understanding them.
structures judged in terms, of their internal coherenceinot in His work will be judged not simply by ,its
terms of ' their correspondence, to known texts or the performance correspondence with known theoretiCal models, but
of masters. The student learns',both forms of thought and 'forms mostlythrough,the capacity of the model to
of action. describe (and perhaps explain) the results, of his
'experiments, that is, ,through the, coherence of' his
Student-CAL interactions of this type involve some kinds of data and model.
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, LEARNING f!ETM'HORS AND THE TYPOLOGY
field or 'space' in which new problems can be articulated; and Interactions of Types ,A,B and Care ,assimilable within a
the like. theoreti,cal framework Qf ,learning from textual material, prose
or connected discourse. ,They depend, upon the content:of material
Examples of Type E interactions il~ the Nltional' Prograinme presented, either superficially or semantically (they are, text-
can be found in higher ,education (though, given'the kinds of or discourse~dependent). Interactions of these types create
projects in higher education, Types C and D' are more cOllllllon t.here) , opportunities for students to demonstrate learning in the sense
in management education, and in the use of data, bases 'in the that they master a text --the text represents the field ,of
schools sector. knowledge ,for the student, and the correctness of ,the student's
response may be judged by reference to its SUPerficial and/or
,Example 7 (Type E) : semantic content. The learning metaphor for, Type A interactions
In the schools sector Local History Classroom Project, is template~matching, for Type B it is recitation, and for Type C
a student. interrogates a database to explicate and it is paraphrasing (giving back ideas "in your own word$").
to test hypotheses about the conditions of life of
nineteenth-century agricultural labourers. In part, In the case of ,interaction$ of.Types Dand' E, more complex
his'work conformsto,what is already known'about opportunities are provided for the student to demonstrate learning,
nineteenth-century rural industry and the methods and arbitration of whee,er or not learning ha$ occurred will
- 68 - - 69 -
require a..far.more complex judgement; the correctness or in·- The learning metaphor for Type E interactions is more difficult
correctness of the response cannot be decided in terms of a simple to describe. It is more like composition in which, having com-
discrepancy betw.een response and· text. Thus, in these tl'O types of pleted a first speculative creation of a work, the composer polishes
interaction, the student demonstrates learning by much more complex it until its internal forms are more fully embodied and manifested
acts of meaning production than in Types A, Band C. 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
Interactions of Types OaridE requi're the student either to finally he reaches a point from which it is possible to regard the
reconstruct rather ephemeral structural aspects 'of a f·ield of completed movement as a whole. Ultimately, the metaphor for Type E
knowledge (Type' D)· or to create ·fields of· knowledge· (Type E). As interactions is the process of research itself, as conjecture and
such, they repres"nt the highest'level'understalldings teach"rs refutation (Popper, 1974) or "perception-communication" (Bahm, 1972).
profess to engender in students and ar". the most difficult to pin
down. It is therefore necessary to keep in rriindexactly what the The following table (Figure 1) gives il schematic outline of
student· does' in interaction with th" 'CAL mate:dal:.·aim"d at producing the key features of the different types of student-CAL interactions
these high-level dearnings, that they are sought, or claimed, by mentioned in the typology.
teachers as·outcomes is' no guarilntee,that.they ilre ilchieved. Often
the activity of the student will be vague', diffuse or ill-directed, (I l'SERr FIGURE 1 ABOur HERE)
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. Power relations, Apparent assumptions about authority
insufficient for cilaiming.that CAL.helps·studentstoilchieve.them, It is significant to consider these types of learning in terms
or even creates the possibility ofilchieving them"In short, of the power relations they assume between teacher (or machine) and
eVilluilting ilchievements ilt t:hese levels remilins'il matter of 'judgement student. In Types A, Band C, the student is "following orders";
not of measurement; the best this typology can achieve is to offer in Type D, individual initiatives are allowed, but the student
some terms in which students' learning activities might be described. remains essentially dep8ndent on the teacher (not the machine) as a
master, and he must conform to the patterns of activity expected
The learning metaphor for Type D interactions is "becoming of masters; in Type E, the student is treated as autonomous and
a master" (riot mastery in the sense 6f'word-for-word regurgitil.tion responsible for his own learning (though this ascription may not
of text). Type D 'interactions are usUally intended to.create forms extend beyond the CAL exercise -- indeed, i f th e teac her trea ts it
of experience' through which the studentcari become aware of· what. only as an exercise the power relations revert to those of Type D).
being a master of a field entails.· III this case, the student is Only in the case of Type E interactions may the power relations
said ~) enter a body of knowledgealld comes to know 'it through between student and teacher be regarded as symmetrical; elsewhere
"indwelling"; his "propositional" knowledge of the field is (justifiably or unjustifiably) they may be regarded as asymmetrical.
supported by a substrate ofunspecifiable"tacit" knowledge
(Polanyi, 1969). Finally, we should note that it is probably in the combination
- 70 - - 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
~'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.
- 72 -
- 73';'
thought-in:.,action, and. call.ma[\age.the type of interaction Illore It emphasises the nature of the learning experience (and the nature
.sensd.tivelYi,at.least ,in. some !~pplication,s. :rh\ls, ,while :tile ,kblds of evidence for learning) rather than the quantified achievement of
of learning sought via qu:.,. are not quali ta:ti"elydifferent f~om those students as measured by'tests of unknown validityand.reliability.
sought in conventi.o.nal, te;wh,ing, theeng/l.geme.Il:Cqf the, stlldellt, i,n And there will often be a mismatC:h.between the type of interaction
the learning. process Illay J:>e Illore f:ocusS"d in, student~GALinter;actions. i,,"01"ed in'the learning process and the type:ofitem used in the
This advantag" may have a.negaj;;ive.aspect, how"ver tqough ;learning test (an aspect of validity). The typology seeks, evidence about the
via CAL mightbethOu9ht.tobe I1lOree;l=:i:ciellt, itispossible>t.hat cognition'of students in interaction with the: materials (i~e. their
students will notbeal:>le, to maintain. the. intEln,,~tyof inter;,action in thought-in~action) rather than "raw" 'achievement as measured by.. tests.
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 Description
motivational consequences. It is possible to describe the learning process set in train
by a'CAL pacJ<agein the 'case of any individual studentbycharac..
In order to 'test claims. about, the, potential "of
.•','.' '._ '. '",.<._,.:
. J
CAL,
'. .'
however, we
:.. .::..:.. -.:<
_" ..,.',.' '.,"'):. ,'_ terising ea.ch "interchange" bet>1een student and CAL, materials"
must find ways to .ehar;ac:t.erise the" l"ar;ning proc""r,l. The tYP9;L0GY tutors, other students' and so on. T his close description can form
'pro11idespart of thepasis for Sllcha t"st, but ,'luestions of m"thod- the basis for intensive analysis ,of learning; '.'; such an idiographic
ology.remain; We ,now ·tl,Jrn to some .ofthese qu"stions • . approach may be contrasted with the' nomothetic approaches of
conv€Hition1l.1 pre-'test/post-test deSi9nS e.
conventional, 'methodology
\, :.U' we are to ,be convinced that, a ,student,paslearned;thr<:>ugh In the ,end, however, judgment about. the, educational potential
an educational ,experience. we. arelik.ely ,t,o ",ant ,evidenc." that he •of CAL will not be made by, reference·to descriptions of particular
can' do something he cO\lld not do beforehand.. This simple,. dict\lID interaction sequences in particular students -- somehow, potential
'has led to a proliferation of pre-test/post-testd"si9lls j,n lUUSt. be described" in more general·terms. The'problem, therefore,
, educational' 'research :and evaluatio.n, which do little to acco,unt for is how to."average" the interaction-types -- how to reduce the close
the type ofdearning .the stUdent. has <'lchiev",danCi"tell us little desc:riptionto a judgment about CAL in general •
•about whether the. stude.nthas. achiev"d .<'l ,I).",w level,?; comprehension
or understanding, as, ,a ,result o;\:tlle ";t",arninge,,pe.rienqe, Put At one level, the problem is bypassed by discussing. the potential
crudely.,whileit ,ispossi,ble t()d"!,,;ig:n apr,,7t,est/Post-test of CAL -- for example, by exploring the critical experiences (examples
evaluation,~which will. appqr"ntlY.quqntify ·le.a~~ing gains' of special success or failure) which can provide models for future
attributable toa~educationa,l.in~eraction,such an evaluation may developers. 'ItmaY'bepossible to say what can be achieved thro\lgh
fail to specify these "gains" qualitatively. ,That is, it may fail CAL, but each new CAL development must find ways of realising its.
to provide a description of the nature of what has been learned and aspirations 'in the design of a learning situatipn.--a domain for
thus overestimate or l.Il;lderestilllate its value. student-CAL interactions. Furthermore, learning is an individual
process; each CAL package must be integrated into a'curriculum on
The typology is intendedtQ pr0clucj",answersana,lfg?uS to those the one hand, and adapted to 'the prior experience of students on the
of a pre-test/post..testevaluatioll..but, by quite a differ"I,lJ:: method. other. Discussions about the 'potential of CAL must always tqke into
- 74 ..., - 75 -,
account, the context-embeddedne,,:soff learning",' of the tutorial-"tyle CUSC package which provided example" 2, 3 and
4, the developer felt that students had found diffficulty learning
:Atanother level, the problem of reaching a judgment abcutthe term symbols,andthe package was a,response tbthat need -- that the
value of 'CAL is eased by speaking, ,from ",xampl"'s-., if.thE\ eval.uator package is characterised by cOillprehenslon"'type interactions rather
conSiders CAL pack.agE\sand th", learnings they.Jpromote 1;oget./:leri"then than, say, intuitive ones; is thus neither surprising nor education-
it is unlikely that,'discu",sions. of the value of CAL l\1il.lreify ally unacceptable, The package seems' appropriate for its aims) •
successes in promoting learning ,as SUCCeS$es of CAL in general (a.s
if the success was somehow in :the.,.tecMology). . Again, the' evaluator Interpretation
must realise the contex~-embeddedness of learning, and of potential. 'Differerit types of interactiorismake lea.rning manifest in
different ways. What can beiri'ferredabout learning from the
The value off, the typology asa means of descril;>ing tl1e kinds of (manifest) student~CALinterac'tionthus depends on the interpretation
student-CAL interactions weha..;,e., observed in .the. l'ational· Progr~e of the eviderice; piaget (1929) faced the problem of interpretation
is that it allows 'the, reader to consider' the learning PrOCess, in his discuss:ion dfcliriical interviews (whose 'purpose ,was to elicit
(interactions) < in a.language .which incorporates"differe"t kinds of the corivictions of children of different ages about 'the nature of
educational considerations (the tYPes" ch<J,racterisations of· which, the \10rldF. The classes of responses to interview' questions provide
include educationally-signiHcant· feat.ures, like I\1hat·is . tp be, learned, a useful ·scheme for'cbnsideringinfe'rencesabout, learning on the
medium, extent of student par,ticipation, in,,"mea!1ing.,J!l<:kipg~'and.so on). basis of studerit~CAL interactions. The' classes of respon'se he
By so doing, it predisposes description of interaction sequences identifies are,
towards educational ,judgments."'- in the ,ligh:!: of the .' aspirations of 1)' the answeratrandolll'
developers,it is· po"sible ,to..describe,releval1t.intera.ctions, ,as. weH the student merely guesses at an answer without a
as their', duration and frequency ,and. thus to, rea.cl1,a judgment, about serious attempt to' adapt to the item1"
whether 'the' package. seems to be. doing what developers. intend,pr some- 2l'romanc::ing ,
thing else. . (It is significant that the typology al"psuggesto;; a the student respOnds,without reflection by inventing
description of the "what else" --on aconventicnal test, it is oJ;l:),Y a:ri answer which he dbesnotreally believe, orin
possible to describe achievement vs. non-achievement, though non- which he believes merely by force of saying it,
achievement remains, undescribed), 3) the suggested conviction,
the student makes a serious attempt to reply but
It'should also be added that the typology cap dono more L~an either the question is suggestive or the student
'characterise student-CAL. interactions in, ..i ts own particular w<J,YJ a .is·concerned with satisfying the examiner without
full description of an interactionseque!1ce will need far more than thinking for himself;
theskeletal'description the.typology can provide, Naither.cim the 4) thii liberated conviction,
typology confer "success" ; what, countS as suc"ess i,nc()hsidering a 'the'student replies after reflection, drawing,'
package will'dspend 'on itspar.ticulqr. aims and. its. ach,ievements, upon the stOres ofhisown'minc1 -~,the response
.Suffice it to say '. that Type C interactioni;l (for eXi>lllple). eanbe just maybe regarded as' an ,original product of,.the
as valuable as Type E interactionsin,q·given .context, (In the case student's reasoning'about the item, neither
suggested nor spontaneous; and
.. 76 .. - 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
- 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.'
- 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"
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 '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.
GOOD ••••
> ~
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
***'*~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 ••••
I
!'O, ML CA N HAVE 2L+1 VALUES The computer r !spane I w,ith a statement of the
SO FOR'L=OJT CAN HAVE 1 VALUE pr,inc,iple and ,inv,it. , a new response. But, as
'".... 1 3 25 C.l was argued ,in i;he ce Ie of ,interact,ions 4 and 5
2 .5 the ,interact,iol ,is r. ,t C.3 because the princ,iple
3 7 ,is prov,ided an I exer_,lifj.ei'., but ne,ither ,is ,it
Type B because the student must produce a
HOW MA N{ VALUES FOR L=4 ?'? 9 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).
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 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
1. Principal QN 1 1
5. , 1
\!) Spin 1
W
I
Test 2 1 1 6 1 ,11
.~
" 24 '
6 2 2 10 1 3
- 94 - - 95 _.
on the b~sis'of'pr~tesf-posttestevaluationdesigns -- but the
former is aspcciallypravalent at either end of the
educational spectrum, the la.ttor in 'b'he tim:i·dlile ll •
typology may be '~uperior insofar as it describes learning quali-
tatively and thus suggests educational potential. (Pretest-
4 This example has been invented to illustrate the typ~)
it is not drawn from any extant CAL package.
posttest designs are often qualitatively unspecific and prematurely
quantitative -- they tend to focus on "raw" achievement). 'The
~ ,j
5 This example, as wall as examples 3 and 4,are taken
Piagetian (1929) classes of response to interview questions were from an atypical package developed by t.he CUSC Project
(known more for its work in simulation). The inter-
presented as a further aid to classifying 'student learning from action takes place via a VDU' terminal. The text in
CALinter~ctionsA example 2 disappears from the screen before the question
appears; question and answer (typed in by student) are
displayed together.
Two appl;Lcationc o£ t:.he typo1.o'9Y (bo the> ChLCnr.;~ l'MI\ op¢ct.r:a
conjectllral,
- 96 - - 97 -
PROFILE 1
DP 1/10 BllSICflJATHEMATICS
(Univ"rsity of Glasgow)
IN THE NATIONAL PROGRAMME, Sector:> First year Uriiversityand sixth form school level.
- 341 -
- 340 .-
Reputation of materials; Advocates of the Project's materials individual students. The materials are .used more or less to the
focus on the quality of the carefully-produced mathematics CAL capacity of the CAL service in providing terminal time for maths
materials, comparing them with the inadequacy of established and physics.
mathematics instruction in large first-year university classes.
The Project argues that its technique for. '!shredding" ma.the- (3) Judgment data, Teac]wr judgments have been collected by
matical topics as a basis for instructional design has the the Project through informal feedback from Projectme.etings and
potential for significantly improving.existing practice,in through a development group in the Mathemati<:s Depea:tment. These
university mathematics teaching. On the instructional side, the have been some>lhat mixed: teacher-users (involved in the develop-
Proj",ct fEl",ls.that.itsmate:t:'ials c4pitaliseon the potential of ment work) seem to judgethelllaterialspos{tively,while a few in
adaptive-tutorial CAL for giving faoetanY·,relevantfee~1back, the Depar~ent are antipathetic to, the Project.'s. CAL. materials.
student self-pacing, etc. Critics have tended to focus on the . The positive qualities attributEld to. theCAL uni.ts. include
instruGtional aspectpf.the lI\aterials; they havebeencharac'- "stlldellts are .takenthroughcempleteproblems" ,"enslll"es student
terioeed.as ,!'C1ull, pag"'7'tur¢ng CAl" and "li.near". The. materials attenti0n·lf· !ikeeJ?s intere~t ali~<;il$,_l~cl"e~tes 'CC)llfid~ncell 3
have noi;:. b"ll';nwidely uSElCi oUJ;:.<i;ide Glasgow ,miversity,though "Elncourag'es students to be less careless in wrHtElIl work" • The
tram;fefoe are now takingplap", to other Scottish. inoetii;:.utions. "self-learning" character of th~li1atel:ials<;l1d the fact that
supervision is not necessa:t:'Y. also attra.ct po~itive cOmment.
Realisation of potential: A committee of six manages the c..'Uo student' judgments have been collected formally (by qu~stionnaire
. 90mpc;ment. of first. year tea<::hi\lg. :for the Depa:t:'tmeni;:... It prepares and voluntCJ.:t:'Y feedback forms) and support the judgment that the
minutes of its meetings and reports to Departmental l~eetings. As materials are effective, though lIlany spe<:ifi<: suggestions for
,a l=esult,.departmental,.interest,inQ<'Uo has inpreaoeed considerably. inlproveIilElntofthe materials have been received (in keeping with
SofClr·asstudentuse.ofCALis concerned,the:t:'e ar", still some the de'Ve~op",efltaluse of student evaluativEl f 13edback) .. Outsider
problEllns of managing access, tetel=lllinals for the large nUlllber of judgments come. from visitors, NDPCAL site-visitors ana interested
potential users. Once stud",nts :t:each the terminal:;;, hOwever, it others. ('1''''''.96 have been discussed in the context of reputation
is : probably true to SaY that no bar:t:'ier"Ltorealisation '.of of the materials) •
potential exist -- the materials are· relatively self~contained,
and function according to design. . (4) ClinJ.dal analySis/cl,)se observation/etc:, The Project has
made extensive use of developmentalevaluat1on interviews and
Kinds of learning sought, StUdent-CAL interactions with the close observation of students at .tElr:min~ls, particularly in the
materi41sare generally of Types B (recall)..and C (reconstructive earlystage~ of development. Thesegenerated much useful infor-
understanding or comprehension), though there are aspirations for mation,. andsu'.:/\,es l:<2d thi'l.t students could use the materials
'l'ype D (global reconstructive or intuitive. understanding) inter- satisfactorily ,that they did not finddifficultywith .the use
a9ti<;>ns in some areas (e.g.thim;ing s,trategicallYabout alternative of the te/;!Tl; :<1;:.1 (a I'otentii'l.l problem sinc~differellt units use
techniques for integration). .The materials fosterTypeB and C diffCdrant speci.'31 .d·l~'1~·a.cters~11:d students must learn to use a
interactions in providing opportwli ties for students to learn key which allows ,,"'v',m ter:minal-keys to be. :t:'ede.fined f~r
facts, concepts ·4nd pr.inciplesthrough highly-structured question- cliffeJ:'en.t. s'::iaGi~,~~' <r.'~';';"'i:'acters· for ,each unit ...-'students could
i\lg (almost ona J?"""Jramme(Llearning model). handle th-a ~se 0;;' t,'i5 ;'interchangeable !ceyhoard" without
difficulty).
Evaluat~ve e.viae1Jceo~ . s tuaentlear,ning,
(1) Test data, Eyidenceh4sbeen9011e9tedabout students' Achieyem"mt .in s'''".':tmt learriin'J area, . The PreJect <::a.n fairly
performance ,on class ;;tnddegreeexaDlinati.onquestionsrelated to clailli Slc'cess 3-" .~utdeving .learnings associated .>1ith Type Band
CAL to1'i"s • ,Students Whous",d CAL.diCislightly bettElr on these C intej~·D;,t.j.on8on the basis of itsevaluc,Uve evidence. Evidence
questionGthan.noll-c..1L users, .though analysis showed tha.t students oflGarli:'~la3sociatedwith Type D interactions (always more
makiIlg greatesj:.use of CAL tended tobe.more able (so the conclusion airficuit t:o,establish) ,.~omes from c()urse.ex~n~ti()nsf more
m\lSt be treated with caution) • studentstium..usual chose a difficult question on a CAL-related
topic and apparently handled it. satisfactorily. There is little
(2) .Computer,-baseddilta, .,Records hav:ebeenkept of stw.lents' locr- doubt that stud-an·cs learn from the materials, critics of the
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 - - 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.
- 345 ..
- 344 -
r
(University of Lee(~, LeeGs Polytechnic, University of Bradford). 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 ,
Director, Rog",r Hartley, computer Based Learning Project, Leeds Polytechnic, BraClf.oLd. pnivers5.t.y) use, the statis;tics
Leeds University. materials an a q.aY-tQ-4ay basis. Six other in13t:itu1:i,onshave
express"d realinterest.in,1lSin<j the system ,,-sit becomes
SUbject-matter, Applied statistics (there are about 200 small "vailiible in a machineTindependent: fOl11l (i.",. :fre", of the
modules in the CAL materials, covering most topics appropriate !1odularOn",comPllter at tb", Computer EasedL",arning Project).
for a one year introductor-y course in statistics for social The, -syst~ it~e~ri,~ la1?;:T,~,'(2()() 0;: so modules:',~f t.fJ?ch~r!~
science stud",nts, e.g. measures of central tendency, hypothesis- mat~riri_ls,t EVi:1~~:Pl-\'rE f Ci\ll..:ui,J~~'r;s-. ,Md slr~lrs_ faqil:Lti:es,;,~tq•.> f
testing, analysis of variance etc.) • but mlq1oj: be. thought j)edagog-ically modest. Tl1e"delib';rat",
choice'· of teletyp", te~inals to explore thE! i?otentia].ofCi\L
Sector.' Higher education. \'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
Ro1,? of Computer, Tutorial,· presentation of text; qu",stioning, l:>e',r~l~~J_;J';t::~" ?1.1;~the:t:;;or~J .,.;tfiE!·'!nat~~~~,~s: ~,r.e,:·:r19F,Jntendl:?d to
guiced problem-solving; pzovision of cefinitions f calculation; be,' P_f:I:-~~~L"~Llie":r]Y,', J.~1ijf.)'Vati ve:~: :3~~ '. ~e;-pl:?~~ci~ ·,.pu.t:s~t:, ",' : :'f~.~~
browsing facility for returning to earlier material or self- a~~ep.,. S~,:t:'~7i. CEf,,' 6~L}aX',~~n.t ,'_ ~oi;, "~;':" c~rric1.}~tm;l:,."qevel?J?~~,n~ :',.J?::(.)j ect
routing. 'I'he Leeds statistics system also prOVides a feedback in s:td'i:istics ~'H The -'scale of use of' the mat¥ri(l~s,,~Vl,~thJ:tl the
and analys5.s of student performance for teachers (and stUdents) , co-oper·:"t.:tn<] institutions is quite impressive, but until 1976
and a sinalation package for use in lecture-demonstrations (it resourCCE > ~il:-fe !l?t,?~va,il,~ 1(3) for ,t1?fIAsf~r:1Je~<?n~, ': 1:118 o:t:::i:ginal
allGws the teacher to illustrate statistical concepts). The eo-ope")li;-:l-"eg:tpl:p.· It, fhollld b" added ,thattheS'2mp\I~er
system supports initial instruction, it is intended to proviCe Ba~~d.c~:.J~~Frd.l.t:J,Ptc:jrct.;i.f3, ~.' ,lec;4er among., U!1~'~E:~~i tY'-i?~,f;l~d
addi tio:lal practice. Use of the system as a ~~Ol'tl:rlf;'i:'cll¥e"":I&;' 9 _ rel:)~aj:·91~". q.nr:1 .: cJ.f,·qeiqpm~!'l t. t~~~,'~n,;qu:,""",~,tle. Proj EJc'~ .~J.'lp0'-lptedly
lA~lrt1 .f~).l'bir.i.jjtJLa.l .teaching 'is n0t 'i:'ecoJ:Jr.lenJed. ~ :r...- has on~' of tI-~a roost t1ieof~tiqally~sophi!:,;t,:ic:ateq.te~~··:L~·,:the
National Programme ..
Mode of interaction., Int",ractive.
Rea.Usa tiQil ofPbtent.fal, ,1'h~ matElri",lsl1"vebe~l}usedunder
On-1ine/off-line, Significant learnings (in the fona of con- typical c~~ii6-it,ioris,. ~?,r.Sill~9,:t91~~.a~. ,peris~s ~nd.,~i th }l"vClriety
solidation of statistical ideas and techniques) are expected to oft.ypes, ofstuCen1;S .·r.,t is, probiib1y t:<:ue" to say th"t. the
take place on''''line; i.e. in the practice prOVided by the Pr()j"cthas t?e D:l~as\lf" Sf th~matel:ial",! having se",n:th"m used
tutorial. 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
CurriC11.!um pa.rad:i.gm with which 1:..'1e materials are most closely revision (intl'ri.'pl:"0jec):'s vie",) .-' this is the mO,stsignificant
associated: g",nerally speaking, instructional. For some uses limitation oil, ,);-;::..lsat:i0n Of ,po):entialmcintion"d by .iOhe Project.
of til'" materials (e.g. of the simulation package), it may be Given adequate compl1ter arrangmllents' the matel:"ialscUll
revelator-y. apparently be us",q effectively; The Project points out that
the computer b"se<t, leal71ing ,system is '!limp~eenough ,to al1~M
Context of uset The materials arB used by students individually v
teletype terminals are generally available in t",rminal rooms.
- 347 -
.. 346 -
r
,
students to use the materials without supervision and a high
level language ,allows teachers to custom hUil~ sets of modules use observations of the materials inaction to evaluate the
to support their Cifferent courses. Large-scale trials of the feasibility and appropriateness of this kind of CAL. Such data
Leeds, Statistics materials outsid8the co-operating insti tu- has been absorbed into revision work on some modules and topics.
tions of thel?roject (which would test pot"ntial in a less
"sympathetic" enVirOnlllent) aX'e now being organised. i1chievement instudeht learning area, T11';'i>roj~btcanfi'iirly
claim success in types of learning related, loo Type ,C, iflte:r:a.<:tions
Kiildsotleaxl1ing S()llgh~: >ioststudent-¥ interactibns in in particular; and in Type D. It would be possible to extend the
theadapti"e~tutorialmaterials developed by the Project are materials more into the "higher" levelS. 'ol:th"tY:l?ologyand to
TJrpec (comP7'ehension) , J:'ut some TJrJ:Jo D., (~ntti:l.tive understanding) explore further applications, of CJlLtechnology in Sl.~"i .. tics
ihteractions' are €lvi,dent. ,,', ' , '. Cours,,"s made' pdssible throU',,-h the' Project team alldthecBLF.
£'valuat~veel1idence on student learning:, 'Theproject has Kinds of learning possible: Given the commitment of the Project
?f
cClrried out . ~ 01.Jr-.P9:t:' evaluat~ve and re~€:~:t~h studies f " often to exploring the. possibilitiesd adaptive.ctl.lt()ria.:I. Cf'J. , ,,',,'
con~ern?d \>1~th' l;)'~:udBn'c, attit:ude .,a;~d:~fhi,evement~_. Ingeli~ralf , appropriate for supporting courses with the kin& ()fproblelllsof
the_c~ntral team 'are' t::.cisfied l\7i the 'f;heresultsof these: studies <1 statistics for'social science students-thatis, gl.lided practice
but are cC\\ltious i.n ,t".~ generalisations which they lllakefrom to SUPl?ortservicecourseswhere students 'arebften poody ,
them~ .' F~?m ~bS8t',"'QJ:ic\T13 ,of:~t1.l97nt.:le:afI1:tng a~d. froDlother mativatedor inadequately prepared for' the simject':'nia.Her '':' it
data, they concLc"!'3t~,at the materials are. ',dequateto their would be faix to say that the kinds of learning l?()ssible through
pUrposes; and. eff0:.:;ti"'81Y,:~UPPlementeXi~ting provis!cn.HetJorts qAL of t111s type will always beprimarHy those'expectedon the
of such Project studies have bee published in internall?a\)~rs basis of Type C interactions. Some Type D interactions are also
l1
of the Computer-,Based Learning Project (CDLP) , and in, the • possible within the general framework of,thedesi9nOf the modules,
relevant research j o u r n a l s . ' , though the Leeds Statistics part of the CELl" s'portfcilioof c.;\L
developments is less suited to 'L'ype n than to Type C interacti~)fls.
(1) TGstdat:a: Course examination data is available on trials
inse~'eral ~e:9artmel1ts,thou'Jh it has only infrequently been 1l tgpicalilearning 'expeHenc,,,, ;,neconomics student' comestb the
subjected to intensive analysis. ,Ne~ertheless, the results are terminal room in the'University's CAL service a:Eter the aa.y's
encouraging: students do show learning 9ains through use of lectures are over and sits'dowliat.a t'El1et~'l?e") <He'is usin9the
the matedals. Statistics materials in connection wi~, an introductory statistics
course. The topic for the course at the rnollielitis"tliesamplihg
(2) c()mpui::I?.r~based data: Careful records are kept of student distribution. He looks at the StUdent Guide and reminds himself
perf0rJJlClhce()n modulesahCl are fed back to teachers using the of the concepts and formulae introduced in the clas.s'atthe last
EVAI,UATEfacili ty. In this way, tear.:.!'ters can assess the module- session .. ' Logging on to the terminal,' he quickly works through
b~~mO'dule:)erformance()~' ·st.u~ent~,mani tor pro'Jress p and' the several simple tutorialexercisesfi'ulliliarising him with the can··
liJ<:e.. Teachers find the facili ty usefu1. cepts tllensettlesdown to some more d8lJlanding problems., The
machine questions himi then provides feedback onhi~aIlswers, some-
(3)Judgrn~nt data, Tea-cher Judgments have be"n collected times providing a promptorremihding hi of :r:el~vClntconcepts.
formallyandinfcrmally by the Project ("specially in the early
lll
Towards the' end of' thehburhe spends at ~'1e·termimi.l he ~lOrks 'with
stages)'aIld, sU9'gest that the, materia~s are highly, valued the concept of the sampling distribution, drawing random'samples
'i:hcugh th~re may be,lilome ,f1<'~TS ind"tail). , student jUdgments from apopulation of scores stored,in the machine, then he b\li,ldS
have also been collectedfo:qil~lly andinfoIl1!ally. Theysuggest a distribution of the 'samole"means.' From tirtieto'time' he turns
that, the materials are generallyfoUlld helpftll, by thesttldents aside' fr()mthe terininal,t6maRe simple ,s~etc!:les '"ona ,notepad.
for l1hom they were 1"sign'ed. Outsider jUdgrr/ents var.l from the At theehdof the session, he logs off ,and 'tears his printo\lt off
.disin~sf.;ive... :cornm7nts6~ . '~ tl1()s"e c>PP?s,ed <-in prin9iple .to t\lt9ria1- the' rolFonthe teletype before leaving; '~erhapshe,wi1:I refer to
type CALm ,the positive enthu,siasms of Dotentlal users and it again if he goes over th,~CAL exercises in revising the work • A
members of serviqed departments.' - record of nis··atbendanC8;-and hi's performarice--has been stor~d'on the
system and "ill be sent'td ,his 'tutor soon 'after the eh,"of 'this
(4) Cli,,-ical' aM,lysis/close obsei:liat1.oh/et6.: Very little highly subsection of ~"e course. Some other students who have not been
intensive observation has been carried out, though the Project did 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
'. 348 -
this topic.
- 349 -
r :"'~"-'
provision),
higl),eJ::"educqtion. Chemistry curricula may .lead potential users to
C1Jr:r;,icu:rumparadigu, \1i th wh;i"h t:hem"'1:",rials arernost closely :t:'egar:4,:t;hem.as.a ."frill" rather than a rieceS9.tty)<
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: Kind$) pflearningsought, ,Student-CAL interactions. in'CAL.ctiEM
p l .aJ1ni l?\1 ; anet ,pJrp.t>lElll)"solying ,. ol?eshave ~a mol'", .reve3,atory ;f'l;avour; prcxJra)l)S are.most liJ,elyto be of TypeC(reconstructive .uncler-
i l1fo rnlaj:i,?n7p:roqessing. ;facili:tie~. wi t:hil1 progr<'ll)lS ,are,emanci- stand.i-!lg or. ,comprehension),though examples ~f Types B (recall)
patory, In:t",:rpretati@pfsp;3ctrZ\ programs can bUi,lg a and D (global reconstructive<or intuitive unaerstanding) are also
rev,?latory sup"r",tructure on· an instr1,\"tionalfoundation. to be found.
,- 351 -
Eval ua ti veevit'ler)<;e on s; tUdep tlearning , Kinds of learning possible: Since CALCHEM does not have a .
(1) Test: Dat:a:c;:ours.e examination data is ayailaJ:>le, but only particula:runitary"style" of CllLbut has explore~.the,po~entJ.al
one maj()rtes~-ba!3.edev"luai::ioneffort has. been made (at the of CAL in a range of. styles across a range oftopJ.cs ,J.t J.S
Open University') I . this sugge",tedthat9n relevant. content difficult to summarise ..tl)e kinds of learning possible,· The
CAL-using stJlden~'! p e r fo :rmedsligh1;ly. bEl'tter .than non,.users, lack of a stron<J graphics componentlimitsthe range. of· inter-·
Harty Cl\LCEj;;M I'r6gralllss~ructure work being done by students. for actions possibleinCilLCHEM programs 1 the Project' s commitment
assessDlent.l e ·g·l,ab° r Cl t pry planning programs}. Test data to guiding students . {rather .than using more open-ended
suggests that: ",tud,mts 'p:elearIlingi:.rom the.CALCHEH programs. curriculum appr()aqqes} may limit its aspirations (e.g. fo:: con-
Test resufts alsoproyideCl.basis fgJ:;teacherjudgments>ofthe jactural paradigmprogr<lllls appropriate for final year proJect
value. of tl~e pJ:;ograms. .. work by studEilnts) ••
{2}. computer-bi'lseddat~: .ll.ecoras are kept .of.useof. packages; ;1 typical learping experience: ThJ:;ee second year .university
·students keep printout which is often used in writing up lab students in a joint physics and chemistry course com., to the
reports fprass'fssment.~. Usage:rates are .highbecause CAL~lork te=inal room next to the laboratory. They cluster around one
colltribptEil",. to assessment and. perfoXDlancEisuggests .. that· students of the three teletype terminals in the small s!?ace and ge~ do,.n
are learniIlg through ~. . to work with a minimum of fuss. They take theJ.r work serJ.ously.
,....
After a brief run through the student guide they call. up the
(3) Judgment Data, Teacher. judgment/;; have been collected by "kinetics and mechanism of the oxidation of formic aCJ.a by
the l?roje<::t: tl)roughillformal inteJ:;Views, project committees· and bromine" program, one of the experiment pl~n~ing pack~ges. The
working part:i.es 'Clnd the 11k",. Qsersatisfaction is high, tdth program engages them in a brief t.heory revJ.~J.on exer~J.se., One
many tead"':rS collaJ:>orating.$.n program dev elopmeI1t:.. Program of the group types, the otl)er two look on, J.nterruptJ.ng wJ.th
usage is high acrO",sthe federatipn of CALCHEM institutions. ideas correcting typing errors, inteJ:;Preting the responses of
Studentj'ldgments .have been c:ollected> formally (by questionnaire) the m~chine. This is a lively threesome, and each of the group
and il1fcn:mally (illformai interviews,feedback to developers), seems to have his say; sometimes one student gets cu~ out when
Attit"des ~re sometimes positiy~, but criticisms remain (e.g. three work together at a terminal like this. 'rhey q';lJ.ck,lY pass
~ome tl)<i)orj' revision packagesiseE'-lIlunnecessa;ry to "big-he,flying" through tlle revision section and go on to make a choJ.ce netween
stUdents) •. Outsider judgme.nts C9ll1e.from potential users/ four possible methods for follOWing a reaction - only t,.o ar~
aUdiences at conference presentations of CALCllE14 \~ork, NDPCAL real contenders and 1:1'1e other two are dismissed when the chaJ.11 ,
site-visitors, and the. li.ke.Thematerialsare "selling" of questions posed by the machine leads the stude~ts to see theLr
fairly well and .the number of .'.'externar'.transfers of materials inappropriateness. They show no hesitation ch~:J.ng ~etw~en.the
{i. e.. to. illsti tUt:ions outs.i.;de.th", CALCHEH . federation} is illcrea<>ing. two appropriate methods (spectrophotometric anc" ,,;rof methoos) ,
they had a '~disaster~) witi'.t an Emf experiment once .bef~r~. .
UU Clinical analyses/close observation/etc., DEi\7elopment Nevertileless, the program takes t.'1em through the JustJ.fJ.catJ.on ns
evaluation. efforts include observation of·students at.terminals, for their choices by questioning ,. and they respond ~ th~ questio
oft"'Il by teaqqer.-develope:rs of packages. The project has not with interest. 'l'hey seem willing to probe th: ma~hJ.ne wJ.th
canied out mUch close analysis of the learning process tentative answers, to see how it responds, ana qw.ckly take 'Q
explicitly to study how.stJlde,ntslearnfromClILCHEW packages,' arivantage of new info:rmation elicited. They refer to th~ machJ.ll-
student assignments supply t"achers \~ith fine-grairiedsul:>s.tantive a~ a kind of mechanical taskmaster (A: "It's not ~nsw~rJ.ng the
data about what. hasbeenlea:rned from a CA'L-Jjllis,.ex!:'eriffiliRtE~e, t' .. B' "It's refused to because the Br wJ.ll J.nterfere
such data serves mostly to inform the judgment of teacher- ques J.on. . , , 2' 't th'nk th"re
with the Br ". A, "I suppose it's sayJ.ng J.t doesn ~ ~
3
developers -there has been little intensive evaluatiori>.aimed at is a way of doing it." A, "It's programmed tO,accept ='1-
cha:r,:,cterising. the Programs.· as learning experiences. (Case ' gs • ") • From time to time they check th,nr lecture
spe 11 J.n notes
d th
studies of pac!,:ages, produced for the Project' 'I Final Review or the theory hand-out for further information; no"! an _ en,
presentation, partially. remedy this deficit), ,.hen directed by the machine, they refer to the VisJ.cara System
beside tlle terminal which provides graphical or other data not
;1chievement in Student le,1rning area: The Project can fairly stored in the machine but relevant to the program. In the one
claim success in learning related to 'l'ype B, C and D inter- and tllree-'quarter hours they spend at the te:rminal, they move
actions.
o
- 352 - - 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 ..
'~
- 354 -
- 355 -
r
Reputation of materials: Varies across the range of packages (2) Comput",r-bas",d data: .AutQIllated collection of usage
produced. Of the two most popularpackag"s in transfer terms, statistics ~s carried Ol.1ta1;;. QMl; and Exeter 1 •• ' the student
the ACl Circuit lmalysis package is seen by some as low level revision package at Lei~este:tlnaybemonitor"d.
calculation, but can still fuel a series of lectures and
exercises for Polytechnic HND students, or form part of a week's (3) Judgment data '.Teaoher: jud'JJl1eh~sarefrnl?lt~itin;t.he
work on a first year Physics course. The ANTENA package, on growth ofCJIL deV:e1.opers from the 9~iginal four Or fiV:e to
the other hand, uses a graphics terminal to illustrate alter"- about. forty: 39 dj;£fer"Ilt ni1I!lesappellr 011 the initilllspeci-
native linear phased array antenna designs: . it is milch more ficati1Jn uocuments !=()r the 75. pa.ckages, lIsfo;r the less
powerful than the alternative arrangements of laboratory equip- involve~ .tea~ll?rs,.th.€! .ProjeCt can po~nt •t?· tr.llnsfe:rs of • ' 54
ment, and gives the student insights into the theory as he packages t028ihS~i~llti0IlS i.n B ??llntri"':;th0ug~l as eyer,
varies parameters and quickly sees the effects on the polar there isli ttle .f"'?<lba.<;:}ton use .fromth€i red_J?ie11.ts. Of .all
plots. ". the engini3eriri'J~J?ecialisllls; only the civil "ngineers remain
untouched bi' theproje?t, Stlldent jUFgm"lltsr-ave beel).
Realisation or potentJ.ai, Quite apart from their; .w ide"rread.·use,. ccllected by quest!?llmiireatHve ins.titJ,lti011.s i . il).ti3rvie",s
it would seem that most packages have now been used under typical have been wide:ly us.ed for fOrmative "'ya].\lation of ;"e"!mate.rlal.·
conditions, and that, giveA adequat" il).tegration into cO\lrse In general, a~d w~iist},minoi:itYOf S1;;ud"11.ts lJlayr8lllain un..
contexts and adequate computing facilities. the ·materials are moved, theri3is ac1.ear con"ens ll!3 thatCl\Liswo:rthwhqoa.
realisingthei:r fu].l poj;enticll. ESl'. dqes. ;"ot en.force a rigid Outsider jUdgments st8lll f:r<Jmpot",ntia.l Us€ir!3 ,visitprs ,and
'house style'of packag,,; pl'."eferl'."ing. to enc0\lrageflexibility audiences at conference presentations, exhibi tion~ and the like.
through diversi ty, though thoa •sponsorship , system of vetting All project institutions have been active in this area, and the
every fresh package by a colleague institution helps to guaranteoa acce;:>t· external transfer record suggests a positive response.
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, (4) Clinical analyses/close observation/etc., Close obser-
and that the packages are being used \iithout serious impediment. vation has been undertaken at most institutions - the role of
demonstrator facilitates this - and followed up by informal
K.inds of learningsougll1:,<, 0Ae instit:llt:1Cll) has.a comput~r~ student interviews. UNCAL'S David Tawnoay (1977) gives a
assisted assessment package. t1hichh"lps stuC!entsw1.th their detailed description of one CAL course, linking close obser-
revision, and this is clearly ofTYpoa B (recall) and TYPe C vation to questionnaires and interviews.
(comprehension). Som", of the T)i:~CH suite>cl1:eJ?rogramme manual
packa.ges of Type C(comprehension). The me\jority of the Achievement in student learning area, The Projoact can fairly
packages, however , ":r"of Type 1) (g10p,"\1. recOAstruction) , where. claim success in learnings related to Type D interactions (and
the student gains an understanding ·of a model by varying its Types B an,: C). The simulations seem motivating to students
parameters and observing the effects on the graphical display and to generate "high-level" loaarnings.
terminal.
Kinds of learning possible, ESP uses the simulation approach
Evaluative evidence ,on. student: learni 12g, in CAL over a wide range of subject-matters and topics. The
performance of some system or phenomenon - from an electricity
(1) Test data, At Plymouth, a course unit on waveform grid system to a nuclear reactor - is modelled, and the student's
analysis, including two CAL Packages, was oavaluated at five manipulation of its parameters yields visible roasults on the
points by m"lti-it"mtest qu"st.icnnnries (reported in graphics terminal. To this extent, as one member puts it,
Broadhuriilt at d. 19(7) •. l),t ImPe:rial,Cm:, is sufficiently 1'ell . 'all packages are trying to get students to look at data in a
integrated il).to the third. year heat transfer .course to form a new way'. Again, 'packages particularise from the general .••
maximum of 45% 6f. the a$ses$ment marking: teacl1ers, find .• the and then expect students to generalise from the particular'.
marks quite el1c:ouraging. . . ... . 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.
- 356 -
- 357 -
,
'
combinatio~sp?ssible,iri aP7rio~, as ""d1'i-S by interference Director: Dr " ' J. McKenzie, Department of Physics and'A$tronomy ,
from nearby Objects'lllbYaIieIlto:rl1!tat:rc. BUild~ng, UPo,n such' University College London.
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- SUbject matters; Biology (topic areas include physiology
meters, 'an,a Sketch theca,+test<lil arid polar •plots of,Sach.' genetics and' ecology), Chemistry (inciuding '::istribution of
Comparisons of.' dif,f",rerit de",ignij, f~;e ,ea,s:j.lyma1e, ;ari4 the molecules in a gas, point symmetry operations, molecular
students cange~ a good • ~~el,' f()r 1:hewa~s in which factors orbitals, relationship b"tween equilibrium constant and temp-
interac~ as theymoyetowarcj6 a satil1lfactcirydesign. ' 'erature'), and physics '(inclUding SchrOc:inger equation, satellite
motion, Rutherford scattering, moments of inerti:a, statistical
mechanics). (Packages ,are also being developed ,in statistics).
- 358 - - 359 -
(3) JUdgment data: Teacher juaJIllents have been collected
Reputation of materials; Varies across the range of packages informally though syst;"matically by the Project through
produced. Some packages (e.g. Schr6dinger, point-symmetry informal interviews, Project committees and the like. User
operations) are very highly regarded inside and outside the , satisfaction is' high, 'partly because teachers are involved
Project; others are less well thought of. The Project rates in the developments: saine packages generate mild controversy
good pack'l-gesm9stly in t<a:t'l11s. of."richness" .anCl practicability about curriculum philosophy (e.g. concerning the educational
for locel1 curriculum contgxts (" integration" into curriculum) . potential of simulations) but such controversies have lost,
It is extremely difficult to generalise across the range and their "he~t" over thE< l1'fe of the Project. Academic staff
diversity ,of. CU~C .pac~ages , . but. since,.all are. developed by invol·.rement in development and use of packages is high (69
inter--institutionalco-operation, they.are .used (and often staff'0ver the five major user institutions). Student
enthusiastically welcomed) in a range of course contexts. One judgments have been collected formally (by questionnaire) and
c;~i tic:ism. of .the pUSC "style" of simu.lation packages is. that informally (informal interviews, feedback to Project evalu-
tJ.,:ey may besubtiy persuasive, using In0dels \'thich are pot' always ators) and' reveal' soine enthusiasm for CAL work in general.
explicit to the student and tending to teach concepts implicitly, Student judgment data has been used by the Project in redesign-
G,,~,,~ealillg somethinlj of tile problematic nature of, tile models 1ng draft packages. Some criticisms reniain~ but student
""nypresellt•.••. (Apparently this is espec:ialiy true of some of attitudes seem' generally favourable to CUsC-style CAL,
(~le biology packGlges) Outsider judgments come from potential users, audiences to
conference presentati0ns, NDPCAL site-visitors and the like.
Ri3alJ.sa.t;iOlldf 1JOt~1l~ial' .'., I.~ ,woul.d P.r~bablYbetruet() say that The Project's internal and external transfer record suggests
mqst packages haVe nowbe"'Ill.lsed. ~der .typical~9nditi9p~ and that potential users evaluate at least some 20 of COSC's 30
that,givenad",qua.te integrati~rl int'? c:()u:rs", ccmtextsand or 'so packages'positively.
a.dequate computing facilities, the mater:tals are reaiising their
full potellti'l-l.'l\'Jaill, tiledi"ersity ()~l.lpplicl.lti9ns d<afiers (4) Clinical I'lncilgses/close observl'ltion/etc.:' Partly because
neat generalisation, but it is probablyt.rue, to"ay th'l-t the of its systemat:i:c developmental use of evaluation data, the
user institutions have thoroughly assimilated CUSC-style CAL Project has Diade extensive use of clos'e observation with
illto a fi1.unber o~. <::ourses and that pac:k'l-ges ar,e being. used. with- follow-up interviews. Much detailed data is available oli
out serious impedim<ant. packages. Of particular interest, perhaps, is' the evidence
that students using CUSC materials are involved in "checking
Kinds of l""'lEning $ought, 'Stl1dent-ClIL:!.n.teractions are mostly kn6\ol~edge·and·lll1p.e.r~t~dinC]'i t, ,; e*periDlen:titig~J, f: ,;lrea~orilpCf1I,1f
of Type D (global reconstructive or in,tuiti,,,e 1.\rlderstandillg), and "interpreting" through the student-CAL interactions made
though some packages emphas1se Type C (reconstructive under- available through the packages. These produce particular' ,
stanilingorp()mprel1ensi9n) "Th"tllt9rial packGlge entail.s s9me benefits for stUdents in "visualising" theoretical,concepts,
Type B (recall) stUdent-CAL interactioris. The Type D inter- P1.':U:lCiples, models, etc. and in Ceveloping "intuitive under-
actions are apparent (for example) when students are trying to st.rl:nding" of the models.
get a "feel" f9r.a In0ael or1.\rlderstan':litby manipulating its
realisation ill gF,aphical displays at the termillal. l)(.:~';,G'"ement in student learning area, The Project can fairly
c,;"'C"J sUCCess in learnings related to Type D interactions (and
F','c"aat1.ve evf.deIlceon stUdent: learning, . ')'.:7"'''' B and C). The simulations seem motivating to stu<1ents
a,,': ';0 generate "high-level" learnings.
n.' Tes.t Clata, pa,ta from course eX8ll\ination results is available,
' , ' l :i.tha~. n()tbeenformally analys"d•. Asel"ewhere, it is J: ':'" :".. ,;:t ,learning possible, CUSC has exploited the simulation
:'-'" infeedl,ngteacher jUdgmli)nt•... 11anY CVSC packages have Cl\""J"_""~" ;c Cl~L over a wide range of subject-matters and topics.
""""1.iateCl studel1,t exercises whichc01'lt:ribute to, marks for E:;';' "'c' ;~",,'," ';1vely i;o.ll1ple mathematical models describe the per-
"c, '~i'",\~ork1. perfCi.rJ;nance on tilers'" exercis€lS apparentl.l' indicates ,o.~; . :.. ;",..""" (;f some G:~'3tem or phenomenon, where a small number of
stud",nts are learning thr9ugh CAL. . . , ,:" c.. '·,,,'.• U'.LJ can be manipulated to yield visible effects 011
9.': ".-,1 displays, where materials can be generated of
(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.
361 -
- 360 -
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
- 365 -
- 364 -
(4) Clinical analyses/close obsez;vation/eta.: Interviewsand Some possible psychological cons~~uences of the decision,
observation of students at terminals provided formative· suggesting that the wife may later feel that she "de.serted"
evaluation data to feed development.. Though intensive .' the husband in his last hours, and thus feel guilt which will
analyses of student activity have not been carried out, the make it harder for her to cope with his death. The students
general findings suggest that the· optimum group size is4- 6 work through about twenty sets of options in the case,
:;tudents, that the tutor.may be best actirig asa resource receiving additional information about the case as it becomes
rather than as a stimulus, forthegroUp(iri the latter case , relev"nt. ,'1');lr0U/f"houtth",sessi"n,discussion between the two
the tutor may turn the Cl.L session· into a kind or expositorY studlilnts is animated: "they feel ple;"sed at agreeing with the
lecture), and that stU,dents can tiSe 'the 'materials relatively experts when they find that they do; theY voic~ thei;
easily and effectively. . disagreements when they feel that some course of action
advocat",dj)y,the exp",r,tsis unjllstgied; . ood they experience
Achievement in student.learning area, . The Project ,cari fairly a kind of shame '-eli even guilt '~:heri they see that some course
clai:a success in learning related to Type D interactions, of actic>n they.ch()Ose caus",s "thEl.patiell.t" unneq~ssary or
though "decision-making skill" 'is itself·adiffllse ability'so even wan1.:Qnsuffering.They clearly identi,fy with the .
claims of large increases in:general decision-making or· problem- 131 tuatiori presented i).1 t);le case, and enjoy t);le 0F.'portuni ty tc
solving skill (Le. across clinical situations) must be treated make the kinds of choices they see generalpt:actitioners
with caution. Exposure to and practice indecision-making..·· making. (These oppcrtunities for learning from the conse·-
seem generally to be regarded as wortwhile but the Project quences of their own actions must necessarily be limited in
makes modest claims about the generalisability of thislearlling. the re~l situation, since they .cannot be allowed to pursue
dangerous courses o:t:"action withrealpa1.:ient~). At the end,
Kinds oflearnillg. [IOssible: The models underlying GCDM units the two students note in particular that their prescription
are best suited,to achieving learnings associated with TypeD of drug dosages.w"s dal1gero~ly i l1ept: .it will be ol)ly a year
interactions. F'airly .substantial changes in .the materials or so untUthey are liCensed t() pr",sqribe drugsal.1d, t);ley
would be needed if learnings associated with other interaction realise that they have a lot to learn. After about ·three-
types were to be sought. quarters of an hour they draw. t:);le:~essiontoa close and
discuss it briefly with their tutor who has happened by. He
.A typical learning experience: TWo fourth-year 'medical students draws,t1;l""irattel1tiol1 to .oneorb-l0J?oint,; where they might
use the general practice. case stUdy materials during their have J?roceeded diff~:rentlY.i1l1di1l1.s~e:r",.a query aboutt~hether
general practice courSe. They go. to the terminal at· Woodside one particular course of .aqtion";,,s re"llYso undesirable --
Clinic during. lecture hours, missin"'a lecture' to do so.. They perhaps that decis'ion w.,s in one of those grey areas of
c.'1oose to work through a unit on lung cancer. 'l'he machine' gives fashion in treatment rather than a clearly dangerous action
them background information about the patient ood his family and .~bey hurry ,?ut of1:h"'t:0omto go 1:0 a lectln:e/ walk lJriskly
presents diagnosis or treatment options, perhapsfivedr six at down the stairs, t);lroughth,e crow.d!d,,;ai ting room of the
a time. .The students' rate each of theseoptioris from one': clinic, and gut 9f, .the bUildin~. .
(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
- 367 -
- 366 -
PROFILE 7 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-
DP l!03 "',"" COMPUTATJ:O'Nll.t PHYSrCSTEACfJINdI,ABORAToRY (CPTL) solving we.·k. Package transfers have been made to many
institutions, in 1975/76 some 107 SGts of complete packages
(UniversitY' Of Surrey) and ;!9 sets of docume~tation' were sent' out, though the degree of
utiiisation is not known. '
On-line!off-liiielearning: "t~ith the, s:i..i!lulationpackages, (1) Test data ,1'.sses$meni fests, associa,te4 '1fthtlle Mat;hC-
significant learnings are e~pected to take' place on-line f in maticalc9mputing Numer;icalAnalysisl'lork,ind.l.cate significant
the problem'-solvingwork, significantiearnings may take place learning gain. !1any CPTL packages 'are assoCiate,d with exerFises
off-line; '" which may be assessed as plrt, of students' course work. Therf. is
soro,e.u",eofdata analysi!Jusing the c::cI!lP9ter,associatedw~th
Curriculum Paradigm with ",hieh tlle,inaterials aremostclos",ly experimental laboratory course work. 'Res,ults suggest that students.
associated, the simulation packages fall, ~7i thin the Revelatory arelearning1:hrqughCl,IL'
paradigm; the computational aid fucHitYpackagesare
Emancipatory, freeing students from either difficult calcul- (2)COmputer ..baEfed,2Iata USage of each piJ.ckage is lllonitored
ations or tedious programming of necessary sub-routines in by. time-logs in the computer.'
their pr9blem-solving work, though the problem-solving work is
itself within the Conjectural paradigm. (3) JUdgemf}llt dCli=aTea<:heFjudgemel1tS.llave.been .;:ollected
bOtllpy p~o~eCj; aridoutsicleeval.uator;s, for f9rmative purposes
Contexts of use, PaCkages are used by individual students in and to asses;" tp?,CJ?T):.' S .i,!njfact,uP9I1 thedepartment: Some 70%
the C£'TL, with a tutor or more often a demonstrator present. of .1:l)e25. 'teaching staff ,,'Ire i l1vol"ed '. ~li th ,the ,CP'i'L, , in
Compulsory use relates more to Mathematics/Computational! varyingd~gr;e",s; Fielden a,nd Pears()n •{1977} suggest th~t the
Numerical Analysis than to Physics i compulsory and other less ent.llusiastic Llemhers tend tobs f..hose",i th l:l.tt;lec:omputing
timetabled use accounts for <:bout 6% of the student's experience (who may not have used computers in theirCMn
sCheduled contact time, and comes mainly in his first two research). Th'" unconverted may doubt t.llat the theory of physics
years; and timetabled time has tended to give way to free can be taught by computers, or may point to the additional
use of the facility. contact time for some staff, teachers involved
- 368 - - 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. . .. ' '.
- 370 - -, 371-'
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
DP 410) ~ll(;E!1i:N~ J?iS:f:SION-f1lJ.I(ING (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.
(London'·' rlu;;;i.Il:e~s School) The methoCG may be accompaniedby~y 0:r: a~l pf}ecturi-'s ,,,ase
study, films, role playihg'exercises; CCTV or the'simulations.
Directot, Mr.!>: J • Boxer.,
Reputation Of materials: ~Ei.'J?roject'smethoos' are often ,seen
Stibject:mat:t;e2':s; Th~l?rojec1: uses a variety of decision- as novel arid intriguing, but are alsOabstr~ctano"<1ifficu+.¥
making, sim\ll",t4.0ns alld theseac(l?modate a DE;o-b;ief pack,ag" toccmpreheno''rhe simulati.onf> ~en;S?l'\TeS prenoll:"det?rpiilistic
whichJ?rovioe~ an analysis and fe"dbackof students' us;eof in their operaticn;~d henceconfro.ntthe stUdent wi~ the
selEic1;edooncepts Ciuring .their decision;'making ••. Thes~u." effects, ofMs own ,andoth.ers· Il.ctiviti()s, ratherth~
lations,covel; :l.I:lClustrialrelationS;inc'lus;1;;.lalll1!lrketingano, , challen<jing, him, to underst<lnoa determiilif>tic: model but; "itl1but
the '?Ilergy lildustry ,and, cap be ,'re... titleo ,to refer to ' neeQing to unoerstano other stud?ryts'\lI1derstanoings of it;
spec~fic +l1uus1;ri!i!s; qrprocesses. ' '~he. feeClback methods Such si.J:nula'tions mayfaHbet~een t:;qo stools, in that tl1?Y ",re
inClude at:;qo-person . 'Jame!'-IlCl' a}multi-J?erson group 'exercise, too behaviCurallY-O~ientedf?rtliose. teacilerf> of ,quantitativi-'
both ,of which can ,invoiveal1ysiibject matter.
'c .._:. ..' . .' :.,.:. ," ·.•. _ ·L··._
'..
,
',_' -,' .. ,,':,' ,,',, _ _ . • . ., methods usihg~usiness'games as .. 'a: j:each~rig d?vice; . and. ~.,¥
are' tootechhical' fori:h?Se' t,eachersof ,?~aliisa:~iollb()llaviour
Sect:or, Higher and further <)oucati()n • The methods hayebeen who use role pla¥~119 as. 11 form of ,experielltlallearl:lillg. '
useo by Ol.ploma ano Mast",:r:'s students, ano' by post":exp<'irience Generally, though, the simulations are seen as a p6~Terful fo=
managers from a variety of functions. of activity for stuoents - many management courses nowadays
incluoe. a bllsiness gameinf>ome form. The, De-bri",£f",edbacl>
Role of the computer: Mostly simulation, though the feeClback methodSion the other hand.' "'~?ln?re m:yStifYillg to teachers'
of students' patterns of conceptual ciscri.J:nination is and students, ano have yet to attr,"ctSl.lpport,
straightforwaro oata processing.
ReiUisat:i.811"· ofpot:.enti,iit.. '.' Th<'i isJ.miJiii tiOnEl,hilve been.useCioil
Mode of interaction, l~()stly batch, though neeQing a fast 30- a variety ~f courses 'and appe~.r to be realisillg tJieirfl1l1
minute turnrcund at the end of each simulation oecision round. potential·as a'vehicie forconfrontirig the stuoent with' the
But the market mooel contained in each si.J:nulation may be interro- implications of. his own interpe~s()nal, p:r:ocesses. The, ~voweo,
gateo by stuoents or their teacher on-line, and all batch work aim o~atransparent sim~latioIl cou+d perhaps befurther.,dby
coulo be run by students if they are able ano willing to Use the p~~,visi()nofanotherint()irogativemoaE!l; tog:/'wi deciSion-
terminals. makei-~gUide.nce onthewage~bill implications ofvaricu.spayl
produc:tioIldealsthey might negotiate, thOugh time apd >
On-1ine/off-line learnings" Significant learnings are expected tenJlin<il cons traintS 'may in aI1j(case ..inhibit ~uch .transpar~IlCY•
to take place off·· line . SeconOly 'the project still sees the. nEieofCil:" a gen",rali"ed
simulation, which, dan be quicklY,C<.lnfigured to match any"
Curriculum paradigm with which the materials are most closely given structure ()f roles and units. 'flie De.-brief feec1hacJ:
associated, Conjectural. Some Instructional elements may methodshaverevealedlimitations £n Kelly's repertor.l. grid
exist, in the subject matters of Marketing or Inoustrial analysesofconceptual'frameworks: ,or t.1tey.have shown th!'-t
Relations, and a Revelatory component may be said to exist, those analyses' ar.ehopelessly" static. (and; in .the. simulation
concerneo with interpersonal processes. But the main aim is setting, historic in thei.rreferring to a deCision periOd
one of experient,:tal learning, an active understanding of the , prior to thatwh,i.ch has justendeo).
s tuoents' and others' conceptual frameworks.
Kinds of learning sought, IIlsCifarastheintel:J?erso!1al
negotiating carried out. in the sim'ulationsmay he treated as
-372 -
- 373 -
•
- 377 -
(3) Judgment data: Teacher judgments have been collected by
Reputation of materials, M..'l,TLAB .has not been widely-publicised the Project throUgh informal discussions,. wor~shpl?s,.. m"Eltings
(the Project is waiting until a well-polished version can be and the like. Systematic records havEl been k"pt fOll()wiflg each
disseminated). It is difficult to generalise about its Ml"TLAB· sesSion·.. (inusei" feeClback form 15 ···and Project·~i'lr~es) .•
reputation because th" . f.acilit:Yi.ts"lf. is . r"latiyely unc:ontro- Theseelllphasise the relative unreliability of .ttl1a.· sy~tfJlll (to
versia1; if' anything, . the· curriculUlll .approaCh· is the contro- be expected during the uncertaindevelopmellt p~ase)an.:l have
versial aspect (cri~ics f"arthatstll~"lltsmi\;h~be "d,," ...•. • included suggElstionsabout improvements inthefacilit¥.
skilled" in terms· of teChnique). .Many mathematics teachers Teachers find it requires. careful plannin9tobllHd ~'.I'Ll\B
find the .id"a"f al'.ATLAB-style mattlfJlllatic:al laboratQ~ USe into problem-solving or lecture sessions , part~c:ularl¥ if
attractive sim.t>ly because it is elrlancipa,t9~•. ·
.., , ., queuing lstobe avoided (it isdifflcult toa'l()~dbottlenecks
in organising student access totlle re~ati""ly "sci'lrc:e"
Realisation of potential: .. MAT~ is only just beginning t.9 tenninals) •. MA'l'LAB .also requiressOmeadjuStmentollttl~
operate "at full strength", as i t ~!ere:the Project has been teaching side iflllathematical modelling'andthEl likeCire tQ
hampered by. technical problems (gett,l.ng its M()dular 1
be emphasised. BE<caUSeofthe "tee1:hing tr0ubles".~()r •....
computer to operate efficiently in what appears to bean9vel
way for this type of machiiIe-- though· the manufacturers insist
potential sers , i t i s not surprising. to .find'thats()me. ,.
ll
teachers have negative attitudes to the .system ,bur thelJroject
that it has always be.en technically feasible), and by cOl1Se9uent canalsopointtomanysuccess:EulMA·rL..~ classes on ",hi<ili •
loss of .siaff enthllsiasm (caused by failures wi ttl the machine , teacher·· response has been' posi tive. Students ' j u~(JlUents .0£
the long wait f()r a reliable se."tVice, etc.). Thes€limpe~ents lILl\TLAB hav"been collected formally (t.'1rough se!llantic .differ-
may take a little while to overcome, but the Proj ect hopes' that entia1 .andquestionnair" instrUIaents) and informalll'byl?~~ject
the facility can now be used in its curriculum context•. On the
staff and teachers • StUdents '. reactions~emixed .and sQme:-
basis of Project experiElnce to date, it sElems· thatthemaiIl what perplexing·. (see ... '.; .(4,) ,. '. .. belo~ for further c~rrJ111ents).
barrier to succe.sswith ~ll\'.rLAB is desi",n of edllcat:ional AP.t>arently students ar" positivelyinclinad to Ml<TLAB in giving
experiences away from the comPllter;· building. "'. curriclllum them experience with a computer, and are support~v~ of th"'.
context into which the faCilitll will fit "naturally". development. But they also admltthat they ·."d~1l 't. learn from
MATLAB". At one level ,that is to be expected, by itself
Kinds of learning sought, Thesedepelld Veryinucnon th"specific MATLAB is not intendadtCl teach; but the response also
context inwhichMATL..Z\13 is used. On experieflCe to date, .1:he suggests that stlld"mts are unclear about how MATJ:..'Ul is intended
empha~isin. stud"lIt-corttent interact.ionshasbeenon. TypElC tdhel)?in .the learning process. Outsider jUdgments have been
(reco~st~uctiva under~tanding0J": comprehel).si~n),•':l:ype D. (sllbbal }collected byth" Project from feedback. on workshops f0J": .
reccmstruCtive or intuitive. tinderstaIlding) and;p"rha,ps ,Type E potential us~rs,conf.erence presentations, .IIMlnspect0J":i'lte,
(const~ct:i,veund"rstanding) '. '.I'hese kinas ()fint(l:ractionsmay NDPCALSite-vis!tors and the like; These suggest that the
be e:Kpe~tec1when~tudents are invol""d in int,,~pretingdata, curriculum idea which inspires MAT finds wide ~uppo:rt among
USing.results,tryi~gmOd"l~;•cempari,ngmod"ls ,anC! j:lle li,~e. LAB
thos1a'concerned with 'service mathematics teaching in further
·Tlle emphasis is'probabiy on Type D inte:ractions·withmathe~ education, and that the facility is a llseful t()()l for .....
matical principles and models. ..
establishing a "laboratory" approach t() mathematics.. There is
some concern· inside· and outside t11e Project that· employers
EVi'iluiiltive evidence0I! stUdent learning i will feel that technique is under"emph~ised inbll\TLAB-style
mathematics teaching, but employers are divide.d on the ne"d
(1) Test data, EVidence is llv<liiableotl the'l?e#dl:n1<U1CEl. bf fors1<:i11 in technique. Given the Project· s concern that
UATLAB ~tudeIlt:s in examinations ,but it h~s notse<.<med relevant students must still le~rn teahniques but practice them in
t? makeri9()rous analy~es .ofthis datasi~ce,.f()~ .~he most •. part, practical problems using ~ll\TU>l3,there is little reason t~.
MATLAB has c~lYbeen used in parts of courses; not j'etinany believe that students who use Ml<TLf>a extensivel¥.~ill be (us-
thorollgh-going ",ay • 'One !'~'TIJIB-.orientedexaminatio~ha~ been advantaged in €>lllployment terms. There is some feeling that
aesignedand used,. but turned out to be diffici,tlt .for stUdents ~~,TLAB may be simply a supercalculator and replaceablEl in the
asitwasb0t:hl'lnunustial format and difficult to organise not-too-distant future by programmable machines commercially
access to· termiilals. . ..
available.
(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 - 379-
drawing inferences about learning.
- 378 -
J
(4) ..• ¢i1l1i8C1~Clil;'lly,."SI9,lO$" gbsorrr.~i;.:i9nIGitc,; . Th~?roject A typical lea.rning experience1 ,Five students in a day-
ev!':j.·\l&ti81'l ~~<lIll h<l~ .c'?;!'.l"cte<J,figr",,,,,t d"''''1.of cla1ilsroom release cluss (fer whom mathematics is a non-examinable
. 8l>~'fITClU()il,~ti'.\,c<lr~i,e40u1:..!!l.aI)Y, il1.J:orm",1. st\lQ,entinterviews subject) are in the terminal room with their teacher. He
w~ tl,l. $, t\ls+e;'lFs a:t; j;l1e ti,U;S' ·they arEl, \lS;Ln9 .!'lATLAB, Md made . hUs provided tutorial sheets telling th<em exactly what to
.' c:;t()sE!' iCln':l1.¥~EJs ()~~j;,U9EJI)tw()r~. .r.eprll;Lng .to\lSe ~TLAB turns type in working .on proj;)lems, They arr.>.;usingnfunericals to
out t8bE!;;t.n9n:'t~ivi,a.l,,~,,~cisefor m01iltstudents ,(many ,are find the stationa:t:y values of a function by plotting graphs
comP'fj::er~tjti,'V;ei'l.nq~'J.'~lIlg1,P.. 1:h,ei,r•Jirst "l1ande;.,on'·.. and findin':r maximum and minimum turning points .'Next week
.contilcj::·,.,i,til. ,a c:9mpjlj:"r) ..Addedtoj"J1i$.,.,queuing.time:and they will do the same thing using calculus.. These students
.d"'t"':"'B~:r;r,ti,iDe can, i,ml?ede.tl:l,,,, :r;:!,9W:of, st\ldent MO:t'It, so. that report ,thiOit,they hil-veenjoygd IIJATLAB more than anything else
doing.r~CI;ti,sti,().")(ampl,,s, Il"in,g 1¥>'r:I.1'.B cantq.J;.e ,,,,e;longas, • cn theirco~se" After theY,arrivei the teacher gives them
doing si,!!lP;t!"'l:' ex"rc:i,s"!lPY )l,anCl' or wi,1:h, the help, ofLa t.'1e tutorial sheet and explains the exercise. Theyhave
calcu;taJior. ,Stud"p,t!l""O!1'EJti!!le", i'l.ppeal:',tgthink. that, :'getting forgotten how to log on to U,e machine qud several other
the answer", fr~.th"C?lUl't1t:er;is 1:h,e, ",m'Lof tll,e1,,,,al:'!ling aspects of typin;; to. useJ1Jl,'1'LAB. 'I'hey.ara slow in typing
eXl'erience;it.is <1;lfficlllt to,orgMi!le conditi,qns under" ' but don',t makelJlany mistakes once th"yget back into the
.which .t:hey. ,and 'j:hei,r.,t:eaffiers.Sal}, c:il-Pi,til-li,!l.e .0n,1:h,e',.I1l''J.'LAB .' swing 0:t::11ll:Ln<;;<the sy",teIll' I!'ro!!l tim"" to tim<¥ , the teacher
cUf~i C:1l1 l,llll phi,l0iloPhY" (ip,voll1ing inte:l:"pl:'".tatign, Illa1:h,,,matic:al comments on printout received; he makes comments like
model;ting, etc~J. What ~'J:'LABs\lggestsj:o the . student. of CAL "Then"xtgr,aph will, s.ho", the. values. more .accurately". One
iril}Ovaj:i,Ol'li,s that ,the curric:,ulumil1Bqvaj:i,on ~ff":linei,l;.as student,finisll"Sthe tuto.rial. sheet in just. over 20 minutes,
"riti,?at (if not mor" cri,t.1.C:Cllj 1:h,anthEJw.TIJil.l3facility: . and the teacher help", ,him. to diff<i!rentiate the function'
9~9anJ.~i,ng COBditiOBs fprs\lcc"ssfu1.,use .of ,~lJ\TL,AB dEJDlMqs leading him into next week's work. By the time the session
ma:)?r chi;>pg"s iBap'\?l:'0",:ches to !lervice ma1:h,emat;iqs ,teac!l,~ng. ,i.~",;over" f.ll~,,~3YE:! 'rnoV~d,':on to: the, "diff,erentiation, 'with "the
(Thi.~ does pot h0;t<fl:t:,?r ;lec:t~", ..Clamonl;1=:ratio1'l!lusing MATLli\3>. teacher givingindividna1, .help. Ona student' has nearly
finished the problem. While he is waiting, tlle teacher
. Achi.ev~'melltj.~~'t~df3Pt. , i~~~Tji~~ ~~~~} .' ;jhilethe.Prqj eqt .can exp],qi,n!l' "It's..whe",e the graph clltsthe X-axis ....... t:.'lat's
cli'lilUsollle s l'!CC:!"S.S ,An ac:h~",vi.p,g1:h,EJ l",al:'ningl;,ia$iloci,at",dwith what you're looking for!" The student looks at the graph:
the s~'!<'l",nt'7C:()!lt",nti.nterac1:.i9Psfaqi:Li,ti'l.tedbyMATLl'.B"., lilt I S a.. g~aph 9:f~h.? 9-,:r,ad,i:_ent:~I:, he: exclaims'. tiof course:i',!
",xp",rie,ncF'todaj;,,,, doe!l notl?ermi tan. unequivocal ju4gtJl,entof t.'1e teacher rGplies , "That's what you said before. lqhatdid
suq<:!",~s, ,~e, !l¥s1;8/llha,s. now .ileEJ!1,Z'eVi.seCi, ,<,U},d;i& Illororei~able, you think it was:" In spite of protestations that he knew
so mo~e ~e:Li,<>plee~timatesofi,i:$acliiev<imlenl;. will bemaCle~n what he, was doing all ",1,ong, the student has suddenly seen
thep,ext. f'1'1months. oJ: . apP1.icqtion~ •(t!i.e,begi!1I)ip.gof:the., th", l;ignifiqance of'the exercise, tlwpenny has dropped.
1977~a i'lcac1EJ!!licye'l,l::), Thei'lchiev<imleI)tsoJ:~1ATLAB, "1'';'11", .of (As the }'roject evaluator notes, th:Ls :Ls a "happy" endingi
course, .,R", mea!l~e4.not . i,n '., :terms pf .thet:acility itse1,~,.but withl1l'T:r.AB as with ",lmost ",11 exercises students do, it is
1:h,<e,.,aY t;eacl~,";rs,anqst,uq",nj;,s U!1ei,t in q:t:~..lin",.. ),,,,,,rnipg , possible for students to "make it through" to a solution
without seeing any deep s:Lgni,ficancein.. i;;'le result. c'olloldng
lfiTj(J$ Oflear;TjiTjrJ1JO~Sibl""P~t:Ucll+tto",ssess.gi,ven1:h,at: the "cookboolt" of inst:l;\lOtions anqteacher cues, the solution
wl1at i,.,],e",rn"'<i dep«;nds; nqt s9 rHush onMATLAI3.aspn1:h,eway it maY'lUoan only that:1:h,,,, problem hasgone.away:,~ there is
~s, .used ini ts teil-c:h~n\l-learll;i.i1g con,teXt, , It wouidl?roilal:lly nothing left toAo).,·
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" NOTE$
(thoughtlles".lIIill,undoubi:ed;Lyb", le""J:4ed as. a siq,,':effect
()f1lS~B\l,I¥>':t'LAB)," 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.
- 380 -
- 381 -
.,
- 383 -
- 382 -
data has not been analysed in anY syst atic way, -~ it is
eIl1 of student learning
referred to by those jUdging the quality rather than regular classroom work. Nevertheless, the quality
in the Project; however. of studen'c ,'ark in writing history has been judged as high.
(2) Computer:"based data: Records are kEjpt of numb e ,r6f (4) C}inic;::J. aD.a}~lSes/clos€· observation/etc., The Project
inCiuiries, though these ~re not particularly useful in drawing has ol)~Y::;rved st::.'~":,yr,ts closely in their work J has interviewed
inferences about st:udent leaming. ,S~udents recEjive printouts pupils v and t:'ctker:\ n general interest in idiographic data.
with tabulated responses to their inquiries and nO:l'lIJally keep Li ttl<, Lo.c',oal w:.,).7'J::;is has been done J though the substancG of
them. , Again, cODlputer-based data is, not reallyreJ..evant in students ~ cont:;::;..r/(~.~'.ions to the Ut<Jriting History Bulletin" has
evaluating student lea;:ning; students',written work is the been closely "J"t'cod .by its editor (the Project Director), and
major relevant data source; " class work 1,..,.'; 08"1.1 discussed by teachers and students. In
short, idio(p.aphic data has fed judgmant data; it is not
(3) Judgment data, Tc!<"wher jUdgments l1avElbeen collected available i.n :rC'ports on close analyses, though t.'1ese may well
informally by the project through' inf6:rmalinterviews 'fe€ld-' be interestir:.g ..
back from conferences and Project work~hops,and from ' other
Project meetings. AS, reported earlier, teac:hers, already .;1chi{:veman't in studAnt learning area: The Project can fairly
working in local history with primary sou1:cematerial ,and with clain:. to hC!.ve u,chie"led success i.n creating the conditions for
inquiry modes are enthusiastic about the materials.' The main Type E in.t0:(.'~:i.-:;t.ions and associated V~arnings to occur. On
appeal of the materialsislrrtheidea of data bases and the basis of. l~he evaluative evidence it is reasonable to claim
information retrieval by computer: , the substance must be that Type E .lxcU"",·ac·tions have taken place with some students
regenerated by indivi4.1al users (though some materials and some rnatE-~:ciQ.IB 5 t:'Jl~'.:;gh hatural1y ;lhigh-level~; learnings
"packages" would bet:<:,,\nsferabie). The main diffiCUlty is cannot be gUa:r:Z1nteed ;-'J~ use of the materials (it depends on
that history teachers '3re often computer--naive and, would have how students and tea';)'''':s use the opportunit.ies created by
difficultyoperating the system ••,i thoutSl.lpport froncomplltor the ma.terials) ~ It ~.:;; J.lfficult to assess the quality of
"experts", thou~h the:::", may bEl schools computingpoople(maths lea.!"ning overall, b . ..1': ·:~:.:itL:usiasm for the work produced by
and computing teachers and advisors). They have a "natural" pU::.?ils is hifJh amo:':1:':] (.:~Ci::S e::"td observers.. The evidence though
I
reticence about the technology. 'StUdent judgmellts hoi"e also most:ly i.nforma1 9 see.rT4 ~;"'~ner.;:"lly positive.
been collected infonoQl1y by the Project, user schobls ,UNCAL
and other visitors. Students seem extremely ent.'ll,siastic, Kinds of learning POSt~.'..i,_7.e, Since what is learned by students
particularly about following up t?eir own incuiries, and their is deterrained by con'<L~,'r:,i..O!lg off-line, not on-line., i t is
own hypotneses. ,Like T:luch inq:uiry-teaChing, -the Project's difficult to assess IaN the approach could be extended.
approach is highly mo d vating, capturing stUdent_ interest Clearly, a range of ~,~s could be fOlli~d for the information
and imagination" Some students do find themselvesi~turnec1 retrieval system in a n~~er of subject matters.
off" by null returns' tdfnquiiies, others no doubtfirld the
exercise difficult to get excited about. This group is not A typical learning exp"rience, Middle school pupils are studying
large, on evidence from the Project. Outsider jUdgments come nineteenth centuxy rural life. In studying the census returns
from HI1 Inspectorate, 1. e. a. advisors, potential use:t:s, for the period, they formulate inquiries whic."l will help them
NDPCAL site-visitors and others• . Mostenaorse the Project to test hypotheses they have about the nature of life in the
in terms of, student motivation and illlag'ination. S!)DlP-are village of Risby, Suffolk. Hany students are interested in what
criti.cal of t?e approach as fostering indtlcti.on at the children like themselves did in 1851 and formulate inquiries
expense of .caution about hist~rical generalisatiorl, ,others relating to age groups and occupations.. One asks fur a list of
feel that students may miss 'out on national trendS if they all scholarso Anot<'1er asks for a list of all children in a
are seduced by purely local: interests. Outsider jUdgments given age group with occupations. They use the computer-
of the "Writing History Bulletih" and of stUdent and class generated data in t."'e next week's class to answer their own
work have often been highly positive, but it must be questions, to frame further hypotheses, to discuss life in the
acknOl~ledged that theSe have sometimes been "showpip-ces" 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.
- 384 -.
- 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.
l(IlOW1edge <irid
- 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
Know1.edge <irid
- 386 -
- 387 -
"
Psgqhologgarlll EPi.stemologg, 1971, 1'.118), "the object is knowledge. (Language is not a repository of kncmledge, nor is
ne'l1er ~nQ\'Ill exceptthrQugh .the. thought of a subject, but the it a transmission medium for communicating knoflleage from
l;lubjectitself:los not~nownexcept in adapting itself to the sendarto receiver) •
object~" . To understanCi wnat students know through CAL, ,qe
must se.e what they do•...• In descdping knowledge in the l'IATLl'lD Dut ','hile the IUttgensteinian perspective provides a
P~ojeqt,. ~leanorWrigh~.andI remarked that, from the learner's theory of meaning, it is less adequate as a theory of learning.
point. of vi"w,. '."the tasks.<tr" th@l!lathematics." Generally \~hen we see students learnirig through CAL, we notice how they
speaking, it .i.s .a mis.take ·to think of knowledge and.. learning in must be prepared for the learning op;;>ortunitfes available in
CAL in terms of content or information (or representations) the CI.:L experience, we riotice how theirinteiactioris with the
alone; . knowl€;dge i.s. mapi.fest. i.n .<tction. materials malee t11em aware of features of their own experience
reflected in the materials, and we notice that their descrip-
In. ol:lserving CAL, I have been .furthElr impressed by the way tions of their learning after CAL experiences are often more
in whichdEwelopers speak about.what they want: theirs;tUdents .. their
like . .teacl1ers,"
.... ~. "·it· h e 1·ps.... you. to' v).·sualise ...... I ; , \;it
to know asa r.esult o"f. their CAL ()xperieJ;lces. They. speak of gives you a good feel for the model, not just the equations",
"getting. a fe.el.for- ••• ",. of "intUitive grasp" , and of ".seeing "it gives you a visual idea of the wave function for various
the point of .... " .. These developers rec(xJnise the taci t aspect energy states", "I got an understancling of moments of inertia'; ,
of knowing; they respect it as highly as those propositional
and so on.
learnings which can be captured in words.
- 389 -
- 388 -
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 -
systems f-structures -- languages for responding
limitations may impose constraints on students' when developers attempt to m~<e the adaptive-tutorial
perceptions of what is to be learned (eogoa program dialogue a simulation of a "natured" tutorial
cahnot<cbpe w~thnumericalinputwhere1nput values are conversation Natural language interaction with
0
quite "unnatu;ral" langll?lges which ctinget in the way of potential dangers in this weak specification of
l(;~rningo. ~his isnot to say th«tnatural language is pedagogical f-structures, developers of CAL simulations
the approp~iate la.nguage for interaction with machines; sometimes build strong instructions to students into
rather; it is to say that what· is "natural" will depend the student guides which accompany the CAL experience
on. what the'stuqent wants the machinato de> or to sometimes even re,'Jucing the imaginative qualities of
recognise .·~stripped-down vocabulary of commands
0
the simulations to the level of exerciseso
which areinptltto the computer by ~ingle-letter codes
may be sufficient for using a quite complicated simu- ~ Modelling through CAr, uses operating-systems f-
latic>llo Ol'jerating instructions, too, influence the structQ~es deliberately to make the machine accessible
form of the student-CAL interaction, giving the student to stdc"",nts as a tool for learning Subject-matter
0
an im,:'lge ....- not. always an accurate one-- of what the and psdagogical f-structures are weak. Students who
compu~er is and. do;;s (;;ogo "will it break down if I ma~'U.:\i;'·
t.~e machine as a tool may~ven come to scorn
put in the numbers wrong?")o it.s use in simulation Hpackages U -- like the students
at the University of Surrey's Computational Physics
. (d) Mi11&ux r-structuies' also influence the process of Teac;hing Liilioratory (CPTL) who, once they develop
student-CAL interactiono They parallel the micro- skill in progrmmning the computer to model systems
le'll'elcollstraintsat the other three levels and refer for themselves,may feel as if they are being "spoon-
t0l::llelllacro-level integration of the. CAL experiences fed" when they use teachez--developed packages 0
- 394 - - 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 evaluator of CAL: to make an authentic critique of a specific
CAL application, it is necessary to use the language of its
what students know (in terms of activity-structures and
cognit.i·'le structures) is a highly-specialised task, and a time- developers and users. They are unlikely to use language as
carefully as the psychologist whose interests are .in the
consuming one. Given, ha",ever, that most people interested in
what students learn through CAL want a much less finely-drawn nature of the learning, rather than in the education of
students. For the evaluated, the concession is • an· important
picture of their knowledge, the language of forms of thought
and action will suffice. Moreover, such a language is one.
sufficient for educational critique.
The critical question in describingh()w learning takes
place in CAL thus becomes "how does CAL engage student
- Forms of thought refer to the dynamical systems of
ideas educed in students through interaction with experience toeduc::e these forms of knowledg€'?" So far, we
simulations based on dynamic models of subject- .-
have described constraints on the learning opportunities
matter (for example) • Alopgside these dynamic
models we may place the more static representations provided in the CAL materials and context (f-structures) and
of subje.ct"·m,,,tter in fOrmS of 'IOrds. Adaptive-
tutorial C<'iL often teaches fo=s of words as a constraints on the student side (d-structures). But, on the
basis for the later developmeht of foms of thought basis of the ways students are engaged by-the learning
(e.g. learning the notation of term symbols as a
basis for learning atomic spectroscopy) •
.- 397 ..
- 396 -
o}?portuni ties provided in the National Programme' s portfolio adapt!ve-tuto.r...ial sequences --_ to Q5(tAmj)0'risQ o.:r .::act:
of OlLiiPplications, i t .is possible to identify different like a master.. rrhese interactions engage the student
intensively in meaning-making, 'but the meanings to be
=des ofenijagemenf. I'M have donethis'iri.t"o ways: first, made are often .eroboClied in the ClIL materials as models
by developing a t.ypology of stuJ'Jent,.CliL int.erar;:tions which (producing fOrmS of thought or action in the student) .
The CAL material in many of the projects in the National
permits inferences about what. students might have learned Programme work t~oughType D interactions.
from the interactions, and secortd. by identifying several
- Type E interactions involve r;:onstructive understanding.
different forms of participation in CAt. ;'xperiences. 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
The typology ofstlldent-CALintei:l:actioI1s refers to involved in the kind of meaning-making which occurs in
di'ffererit f'operh:~i6n~1 d~~fnitidns~i"'Of"tlie""'ie:arriirtg'taSkas research, making new meanings for himself. The student
att6Qpts to establish his·mastery of the subject-matter
these are embodied in theCl'.,Lliiaterials. They refer to in his own terms.
operations OIl \:il.~ s ubj ect-Inattet;Cto-be·-learned:
The typology of student-CAL interactions allows us to make
- 'rypen: interaction~reqtiire the student to recognise inferences about what students learn in terms of the degree to
material presented previously. They.require little or which they are involved in the process of meaning-making. It
n,9 L1(2·ani,Ilg~~a~il1g,onthe stud~nt ~,~,J?a:rt:. ,', ;Ther~;,_,are should not be thought that Type E interactions are always more
virtU/illy nb examples cif Type· A interactions in ·the
CAL materials. produced unde:c.:the, .auspices of the valuable than, say, l'y1"" C. At different stages in learning
National P~ogriiillIDe.
some subject-'lJlatter, different types of interactions will be
Type Binteractions ·reqllire :the stUdent. to recall appropriate. And for pedagogical reasons the teacher or CAL-
. infOrmation presented previously. They requil':e
practically no 'me-aning-making on the stUdent's part, developer may want to provoke different kinds of interaction
but they do require, an act Of content-reproduction. (e.g. involving students in the prob16ms of a field through
pome. qu, m~tel':ials,. (especially, adaptive-tutorial) in
Typ~ E interactions before introducing them to its theoretical
National Programme· projects contain. examples of Type
Binteractions. ~erminology via Type 3 or C interactions) •
- 398 - - 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
- 402 -
- '103 -
,
i
- 404 0-
- 405 -
Q
It may seem unnecessary to tackle such broad issues of such a perspective might provide the .mean,; for gen"ratin9 an
curriculum and innovation in understanding stUdent learning educational psychology.relevant tp practical curriculum issues
through OAL. On the contrary, the analysis of stUdent-CAL would. seem by itself to.be .a reason for further wor~il'l the
interaction in terms of. f-structures and d-structurc.s area. Professor Jchn i\Anett, in his SSRC report Coml'uters in
= suggests
that learning milieu always exerts an influence on what is Eduoation. L969/L975.rem"rks ,t,hat the. National l?rogr<!I"urce' s
learned (by affecting how it is learnea'). Moreover, . develol'mentwork may prove to .be a useful fOundation for
it is
impossible to provide the means for authentic critique without researchDn learning. If. learning pSYchologists will accept
taking into account the values of developers as these are the di"versity of uses of OAL and recognise therichnes~ of
expressed at th& level of curriculum. &Jhy the potential real-life learning, then.it seems tome that Annett is right.
interactions built into the CAL materials are as they are will Learning psychology has much to learn about learning from the
depend on that higher"'level ration,'le. real life of educational. practice.
.. 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 .'inally, it may be of some interest to evaluation
must curriculum practice. To be judged in their historical resea.rchers to explain the role of .these working papers within
context, historico-critical methods must be used (the study .the UNCAL independent educational evaluation. of. the NDPOAL.
·0£ the politics and processes of curriculum development and The UNCilL evaluation .is conceived lorimarily as a democratic
innovation; studies of the' learning process) . 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
Postsoript issues addressed here have been introduced into the evaluation
through my own epistEmlOlogical, curricular and psychological
Thes& werking •oapers are e·ssent<nll·y interests, it neverth&less seems to me that they are straight-
.- specu1ative. They
have attempted to establish a Derspective en the evaluation of forwardly countenanced within a democratic model. First of
student learning. While they make a contribution to the all, there is tlle adherence to the negotiation principle
evaluation of student learning through CAL as i t is found in (tl,ough the release of Chapter 6 was not negotiated with the
the National Progr~mne, they also raise research issues in Project concerned, almost all th& rest of the content has been
curriculum, evaluation and learning. The ramifications of
- 407 -
- 406 -
Q
~ 408 -
- L1.r09 ...
~eckerQ H. Geer, D., Huglles;E •. C. and Strauss, A. L.
Doys in White. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1961.
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.
- 412 - - 413 -
Foster,·:J. "Lapj?in,M and. ~lright.,E • . ~'li;v",l.uati<)t:l,Plan," Hunt, J. McV. The Challenge of incompetence and J::'overty.
',.' r{a1:b.emati:cS'LiilioratoiY.j,>ro:Ject"~"'Pie%;Coll.!¥J<il .of; Urbana, Illiliois: University of Illinois Press,1969 •
.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, of alt.ernatiye instructional media; ,A survey,"
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. R<ilv:l:ew of Educational Research, 1974, .::!i' 1-67.
Ginsbul:g ,'H l":and' Opper, ,S·;';·,l?iaget!s. Theory.' of.Intel1ectual Jepsen,D. A. and Dilley, J.S. "Vocational decision-
Development. En\tlewoo.:!"Clif:fs, N,,',:J:..;,: ;;>:r".Il'l:!c..-Hall, making models: A reviet~ and comparative analysis,"
1969. Review of Educational Research, 1974, .::!i' 331-349.
'GlaSler, RP . "Cone<lptLea:rni1:lgand' . ConCeptTeachin.9:," '" In ,. Kaptan,A, The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco:
··R'.M .'Gagl)e;®c:W..J:,Gephar.t de4!'! .).,:Le<lrningRe!'!earch Chari<'ller, 1964.
and School Subjects. 'Itasca;±lnn6isiK~ac()c:k,~1968.
KelIllIlis, S. "Evaluation and the Evolution of Knowledge about
Hdbermas'j'J; 'KncMled$l<l and Human:. Intere!'!t!b. t,rans. 'JerElmy
. .. J.
;, , "''' ','
Educational Programs." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Shapirb, ·;t6nd6ri,caein~<1l1n!.';1.972,' i uni,versityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1976.
Habermas":'J, :Theory,·and,cp,ractice,·ctrall$. , Jch ll ::viertel. Kesey, K. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
London:' ."He·inelllann,.197:4 .:.: .;., •
Kl1ifong, 'J. D. "The blind men ane the elephant (a modern
Regel, G. W. F. The Phenomenology of Mind, 1;:;aT+s.a: .D.iJaillie. version~ ." ClWR Quarterly (Center on Evaluation
New York: Harper Colophon, 1967. Development and Research, ,Phi Delta Kappa, Inc.,
'i' D100mington, Indiana), Summer 1975, ~, 16-18.
Hirst, P. "Liberal EducatlOn,<lndtl1<il N'flFU;~.()fY..noWiedg'e."
In R. S. Peters (ed.) '1'116 Philosophy of 'Education. Lappin, M. "The Survival of Innovations in Educational
,"':Ox:ford,,'c Oxford.'University.? l?re!'!s,1973. Institutions." Paper presented at the symposium on
.!.<r:.' Research in Chemical Education in Scotland, Scottish
Hooper; R,' Two Years Om. :'London' CqunciJ, JorEducational Regional Committee, the Chemical Society, Glasgow.
TeChnoJ;ogy/19'7;!?, . 1976.
Hooper R. The National Development Progrannne in Computer Laing, R. D. and Esterson, 11.. Sanity" Maaness'; 'and the
, AssiSted Learning: "l?irtaJ:: .Report, of. the DireCt9r, L.ondon: Family. Tavistock publications 1964 •.
C6unci l:' for Educational ·Tl'lchnQtogy... t97-7'J
Langer, J. "DisE;quilibriUllI as a Source of Development."
Howiil ;'J •. AVM;') :}'Lea:r.ning" thro1;1gh •:LOGO, .'1} ,PapElr presented at In P. Mussen, J. Langer and M. Covington (eds.) Trend~
the SSRC Seminar on Computers in Education, 'uni.versity and Issues in Developmental Psycholo<;,'Y. New York:
of t!JatW~(:K;>(;oy"ptJ:¥Lg:'\l:l:¥1~~+6,:,1976. e Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
Howe J. A. I.J. and Delamont, S. "T;;wards an 'Eva1uation Strategy Lauri11ard, D. "CUSC Evaluatj.on Report." Institute for
· · f b i.. cllI:l?rQg:t'~.", Di:onics ReseClrch- Rl'lports: No •. 15. EdUcational ~echnology, University of Surrey (mimeo),
"13i6nics ReSeClrch Laboratory,y.·Scn091. .• QfJ1rf:.if;icial May, 1977.
Intelligence, Univarsity 9f Ediniiit.lrg!i;:,,'1974.• ", .
- 415 -
- 414 ..
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. '
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<),; .
. \. "
- 418 -
- 419 -
Stake ,R.t::. '''rife Ca~e studY. Method;l.IiSo~i"lInCJUiry. .. Tyler,.R.·:W.i3asic!?rindiples of· Curriculum and Instruction.
' . . centre fo~ Applie'd:ResearchinEducation, university Cl:licago: University of Chicagb:press ,1949.
of. j;;",st· Ahglia(mimeol, December; 1975. •. (To be
repiintedinli.· Simbris'(ed~)'ToWards a Science of Varela,F ;i;/; M"lt~~Cl;; fiTi. atidUtib"',R. 'j;\utqpoiesis,
the singular~ 1978, i.n press) • TheOrganizatiqn.ofLiving syst€ll!ls;·Its Characterization
and a Model. Biological Computing Laboratory,
Stanley' J~ C. 'icoritrolleClF'1el<:J. EXperimentS "lS a Model Univl')rsityof.IlliilOis at Urbana-Champaign,
for Evaluation." In Peter'·lI.· Rossi:and' Walter BCL Report No •. 239:;,'no date.
William;;; (ads .l . , . Evaluating Social Programs.
. ·c.NewYork:Seridnar: Press, 1972·•.. : . von l~right; G.fi;· Explanation and Understanding' •
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971.
Strike, K. "On the.ixP·ressive potential of behaviorist
language" American Educational Research Journal, Wadding.ton, C. W. "The' Theory of EvolutibnToday;"
"1974,11:, lo3'"120~·'··· InA. Koestler:'andJ .R.: smyt!)ies (eds.) Beyond
-,,;.;.
Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences.
Suppes, P. andMorningstar~ M. ."c()Illputer-assisted Boston: ·Beacon 1'ress·/1969. ".
. instruction,.. scienc~i 1969/.166., 343-350.
- 421 -
- 420 -
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;'".
, .. , , , .•.. -' .. ,,,.- .. , , , ....•. "
- 422 -
'f I
- 423 -
!
Ii
,
'>.RTICLES
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.•
Atkin, R. "Evaluation for Decision-Makers, Isomorphism,.
Pluralism, and Power" In H. Norris (ed.) , SAFARI Interim Kemm!s,. S '''l~ollloth".ticario. Idi6graphic ApproacheS to the
?apers 2 - Theory. in l'radtice. Centre for Applied Eya;l.uationp(c0ltlPuterAssi~tedLearning". !,Jdurnal of
R"search in Education, Uliiversity of East Anglia, 1977. Curri.culum. Stud1es,.197S, VoL 10, No. 1. . (lUlearlier
version of this paper was· presented .at.theSSRCResearch
Jenkins, D. R. "CAMOL Routes for Student Teachers" Centre Seminar on Computers in Education, University of Warwick,
for Applied Research in Education, University. of East
July 14.-16,1976) •
Anglia (mimeo), ~!arch,. 1976 •. (Originally presented as
a tape-slide sequence at the·APLET conferenCE>, Dundee, MacDonald, D. "planning a Project Evaluation." Centre for
Narc.'l, 1976.) 1).pplied Research in Education, University of li:ast Anglia
(IllilliElo), 1973. (pre!ilE>nt"G at an NDPCALconference in
Jenkins, D. R. "Business as unusual. the skills of
London, September, 1973).
bargaining and negotiation course at the I.ondon Eusiness
School." In George l1illis (ed.) Curriculum Criticism, l<IacDOnald, D. "From Project Evalllati0n. to PUblic Judgement."
McCutchan, 1978.
:!:.imes Higher li:ducation Supplement, July 18, 1975.
Jenkins, D. R. and O'Toole, B. "r:urriculum Evaluation, '; ~ : ,,':
"
<.' ....: • ,;
Literary Criticism, and the P2!,ra,curriculum". In In D. A. Tawney (ed.) Curricul\llll li:valua~on Today, Trenas
George Willis (ed.) .curriculum Criticism, McCutChan 1978.
. and Implications ~. I.ondoIl:. Schools. ~ollncJ.l .Research
Studies ,M<\.cMillan,;l.976 •.. (Presented at. ~e. SSRC Re~earch
Jenkins" D. R., Kemmis, S. and A£kin, R. "The UNCAL S~inar on Computers in Education, UniversJ.ty of Leeus,
Evaluation of the National Development Programme in
Ma.y ,i974).•
Computer Assisted Learning: I\n insider's critique."
In N. Norris (ed.) ?~~FI>.RI Interim Papers 2 .- '.rheory in HacDonald, B. "The port:rayalOfl?<lfsons· as Evaluation Data."
~!~~. Centre for Applied Research in Education, In N.Norris .(ed.l SAFARI Interim Papers 2 - The?ry in
Unhersi ty of East lUlglia. 1977. (An earlier version of Practice. Centre for l.ppliedRes"arch in EducatJ.On,
this paper by D. R. Jenkins and S. Kemmis was r>resented uniyersity of East Ariglia, 1977 • . (presented at th~ Ar:nual
at the Annual Heeting of the American Educational MeElting of the [werican .Edu.cational Research ',ssocJ.atJ.on,
Research Association, .1\pril 19-23, 1976, San Francisco) • April 19-·23, 1976, San Francisco) •
Kemmis, S. "The UNCAL Evaluation of Computer Assisted tlacDonald, 13 • "',nEducati.onal E~aluatiol1ofthe NDPCAL".
Learning (a case study)". In R. E. Stake (ed.) The Eritish Journal of Educational'l'echnology, Vol. 8,
Responsibility to Evaluate Educational Programs.--Centre
No.3, october, 1977 •.
for Educational ResearCh and Innovation, Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1975. NacDonald, ll. "Future Indicative,? .An Overview of Evaluation
in Education". (Presented at the C"!: '}7 symposium in. the
Kemmis, S. "The Problem of Attainment, Private Knowledge Diological, Medical and physical Sciences and Engine~ring,
and PUblic Discourse". Centre for Ilpplied Research in University of Surrey, April, 1977). Centre fer APP~Led
Educa'tion, University of East hnglia (mimeo), February, Research in Education, University of li:ast Anglia (mJ.meo).
1976. (Presented at the Annual Conference of the Dritish
Educational Research Association, University of Stirling, MacDonald" D. anc1 Kemmis f S. ~'Macro-Project and ~!eta
September 1-4, 1975. A short version of the paper has Evaluation." Research Intelligence, 1976, ~, 36-39.
been published in Research Intelligence, 1975 l, 29-30).
- 424 - - 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
_ (~27 ...
- 426 -
,