1.3.2.2 The Focus of Educational Goals of Past Projects
While many educators have agreed that computers could prove valuable for education, they have developed
different orientations about the ends to which computers should be used. These orientations have reflected
themes which were present in the broader field of education for a great deal longer than computers have existed.
Some educators have emphasized predominantly discipline oriented goals, while others have emphasized cognitive
and motivational goals. These goals have been centered upon benefits for the learner beyond the improvement of
their knowledge in a particular discipline. The distinction between these orientations has been referred to as
instructionist and constructionist respectively (Papert, 1980).
The foundation of an instructionist orientation is the belief that systematically designed computer based
instruction can transmit a clear cut body of knowledge from one mind to another in a straightforward manner.
Educators with this perspective are generally interested in meeting objectives in an efficient manner,
while making sure that the discipline is represented and communicated effectively. Early research and
development projects focused on Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) based upon the concept of programmed
instruction that was promoted by Skinner in the 1960s (Skinner, 1968).
These types of CAI were guided by a commitment to highly objective oriented methods, and generally consisted
of programs that presented text and graphics on the screen, asked students to indicate a response, and
evaluated their response through feedback of correct or incorrect and an explanation of the judgment.
The author of the instruction controlled what was presented, how much information was presented, the order
of presentation, and specific questions for learners. Early CAI programs did not respond to students' questions,
responses or problems that were not specifically designated in advance by the programmer
(Suppes, 1980). Educators quickly discovered the limitations of
educational software of this type (Alpert & Bitzer, 1970).
A few educator's turned to the emerging field of artificial intelligence for possible solutions.
They believed Intelligent Computer Assisted Instruction (ICAI) would escape the problems of CAI,
while still maintaining an objective-based approach to instruction. A major goal of ICAI is to make
the implicit discipline expertise explicit to the learner, in an optimal manner for the particular learner,
while giving them as much control over the system as possible. This process requires a representation of
the expertise to be learned (knowledge base), a representation of the student's expertise (model),
and methods for optimally tutoring the student (strategies). Park
provided a visual representation of these elements and their relationship in the article "Functional
Characteristics of Intelligent Computer-Assisted Instruction: Intelligent Features" (see Figure).
Figure A Schematic Representation of a Typical ICAI System (Park, 1988)
Because developers of intelligent tutoring systems attempted to integrate research on how novices
learn and how experts solve problems, ICAI has been characterized by a thorough and fine grained analysis
of the skills, knowledge and procedures involved in solving problems in a subject area, as well as a concern
about understanding and representing the state of the student. Developers of ICAI expected their approach to
increase students' control over the machine, thus improving upon CAI, while maintaining a generally objective
based approach to instruction where the majority of control for the instruction remains in the hands of the author.
While at first ICAI was hailed by many educators as the savior of objective-based education, misgivings about
the potential of ICAI to address deeper issues of education emerged in 1985 at the second conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Education held at Exeter University (Yazdani, 1990).
The educators at the conference divided into two groups. One group continued to believe that, if given enough
resources, Intelligent Tutoring Systems could be built to match the best of human teachers
(Sleeman & Brown, 1982). The other group believed that the complexity of
the human learning process to be so great that building instructional systems should be given up in favor
of building computational environments which encourage learning by discovery.
This group's perspective is expressed by Oliver Selfridge in a dialogue with Robert Lawler, entitled
"Research for Education", where he observes, "we have difficulties because we want to simplify purposes
and make them into simple rules about satisficing things"
(Lawler & Selfridge, 1991, p. 311).
Selfridge does not take the position that the processes for producing
effective instruction are clear cut, but instead makes a convincing argument that the issues involved are a
great deal more complex than they are generally treated. Many constructionists share this perspective.
One reason they do is because they focus on less clear cut and harder to define higher-order cognitive goals
that may be achieved through some applications of computers in education. Constructionists also believe that
giving learners control over the computer changes their relationship to the content, and results in motivational
and attitudinal advantages as well. Seymour Papert is a leading educator who has described the ways that
computers can enhance less clear cut higher level cognitive goals and learner oriented outcomes. In the
following passage from the book "Mindstorms" he described the benefits of his more learner centered approach
to using computers in education.
In many schools today, the phrase "computer-aided instruction" means making the computer teach the child.
One might say the computer is being used to program the child. In my vision, the child programs the computer and,
in doing so, both acquires a sense of mastery over a piece of the most modern and powerful technology and establishes
an intimate contact with some of the deepest ideas from science, from mathematics, and from the art of intellectual
model building. (Papert, 1980, p. 5)
Papert and the Logo community also played a key role in reformulating uses of computers in education to
communicate content, by emphasizing the computer's ability to serve functions other than for the control
of the machine through programming, and put it in the service of much broader educational objectives through
its modeling capabilities:
The computer is the Proteus of machines. Its essence is its universality, its power to simulate.
Because it can take on a thousand forms and can serve a thousand functions, it can appeal to a thousand tastes.
(Papert, 1980, viii)
Papert referred to the resulting approach to using computers to teach content as microworlds. Papert
describes computer-based microworlds as incubators of knowledge, transitional computer learning environments
where learners can experience knowledge somewhere between the concrete world of everyday experience and the
hard to grasp world of formal abstract thought (Papert, 1980).
Another early creator of Logo, Wallace Feurzeig (Feurzeig, 1987),
specifies the strength of microworlds as their focus "on exploration and investigation rather
than knowledge acquisition, on constructing rather than receiving knowledge, on learning rather than teaching"
(p. 51).
Microworlds are engaging because of the learner control available within the environment.
Users decide whether the computer is to execute some function in its repertoire, to demonstrate its
means of solving a particular problem or class of problems, or to provide coaching and challenging problems when
the user wants them (Lawler, 1987).
One way to view the distinctions that have traditionally been made between the emphasis of instructionist
and constructionist goals is to frame the discussion in terms of the role of the learner and the resulting
degrees of learner participation achieved. To provide a basis for this discussion, it will be helpful to
introduce a framework for representing levels of learner control and participation.
Anne Nicol (Nicol, 1990), a researcher at Apple, proposed a continuum based upon
the levels of control
learners receive over the creation, organization, and presentation of material (See Table).
This continuum is useful for labeling classes of interfaces and for examining goals. Throughout this study,
it has been used to frame discussions of the role of the learner. Distinctions have been limited to a bi-level
distinction of activities which allowed for interaction (Interactive and Browser) and activities which involved
learners as active constructors of some aspect of their own instruction (Templates and Author).
Learner constructed materials afford the greatest control to the learner, and have traditionally been
associated with constructivist goals.
____________________________________________________________
Interactive: Learner as Reader with no control over presentation. (Interaction)
____________________________________________________________
Browser: Learner has control over presentation order and amount. (Interaction)
___________________________________________________________
Templates: Learner has control over the organization and entry of material.(Construction)
___________________________________________________________
Author: Learner is an author with full control. (Construction)
___________________________________________________________
Table Continuum of Learner Control