4.2.1 The Role of Learners
Usability was sometimes recognized as an important selection criteria before a software
package was adopted or written. When it was not included before a project begain,
it became a problem after courseware was under construction. A key factor which
determined when the issue was considered was the expected relationship between the
learner and the author.
The decisions about the degree of separation between author and learner fell into
three categories.
- The author's and learner's interface were completely separate, and either one
could be difficult or easy to use. Authors sometimes needed to create easy to use
courseware for learners with hard to use software.
- Different "levels" of learner and author interaction could be selected,
providing for some movement between the roles, although not transparently.
In the ESCAPE project, learners were to construct their own "life planning workbook".
HyperCard was chosen because of its usability for learners. While this goal was achieved
with a certain degree of success each semester, there was always concern over what
"user level" the students needed to be given access to during instruction.
While the distinctions between user-levels were relatively easy to access and control,
they were not sufficiently convenient to allow giving control of creation to novice
users without explaining more about HyperCard than time allowed. Over the course of
the project's development each semester, less and less instruction was provided for students,
due to the limited amount of time that was realistically available during a seven to eight week,
or even six week course. When full instruction was not provided, compensation was
made by doing the more complex functions for the students and providing them templates to
complete as assignments.
- HyperCard has been the most commercially familiar application which addressed the
relationship of author and user, but the issue has an older history. The issue was addressed
directly at both Brown and MIT, where Context32 and the Physical Geology Tutor were constructed
in conjunction with software development projects in which large teams were charged with creating
software specifically to support effective interaction and creation by learners.
Educational goals in the educational context of the project dictated that learners
should create something themselves, rather than just interact with interfaces provided
by the authors, so there was to be no separation between the roles of author and learner.
Key goals of the software projects included making easy to use authoring software from
the beginning so that learners would not be intimidated by assignments to contribute.
The older of the two software development projects was Intermedia, in which the relationship
between the author and user was a major initial design criteria for their authoring environment.
The roles of author and user were the same, and the distinctions or "boundaries" between the
modes were eliminated. This goal was achieved well enough to support a large amount of
contributions by students to the "web" of materials for Context32 and materials created
for other courses later on. In the following passage, Nicole Yankelovich describes the
issues that were considered about the relationships between the author and user as they
prepared to create Intermedia:
The creation of data can be handled in substantially different ways.
Some systems have separate tools for authoring the document and for presenting
it to readers. Many frame-oriented CAI programs fall into this category.
Instructors (authors) are given the freedom to create frames of information and
link them together sequentially or non- sequentially (by indicating branch points).
Students (readers) may have the ability to interact with the lesson and sometimes
to browse through the frames, but they are not permitted to alter the links or add
their own connections. Furthermore, the systems almost never allow student readers
to collaborate, share ideas with other students, or comment on each other's work.
In some cases, the authoring tools are resident on large time-shared computers,
while the final document is presented on small stand-alone microcomputers.
Ideally, authors and readers should have the same set of integrated tools that
allow them to browse through other material during the
document preparation process and to add annotations and original links as
they progress through an information web. In effect, the boundary between
author and reader should largely disappear. Another goal in the design of
Intermedia is to support collaboration between and among faculty and students.
We also seek to make it both easy and inviting for students to add to and modify
the materials presented to them by their instructors.
(Yankelovich, Meyrowitz & VanDam, 1985, p. 21)
Note the impact of the relationship of author to learner which Intermedia chose to adopt and
the one incorporated in HyperCard. At Intermedia, distinctions were eliminated rather
than controlled. Consider that Intermedia successfully achieved its goal of "usability"
by simplifying the environment and entirely eliminating the option of programming by users.
The cost associated with this approach was a distinct loss of flexibility in functionality
within that environment. On the other hand, HyperCard's approach is more flexible for
functionality, but somewhat confusing for novices to understand. Time will tell which approach
is more accepted by educators who purchase and use software for learner construction.
The graceful resolution of this issue is a problem for the next generation of authoring
tools for education.