Learner support options in computer-assisted learning

Attention is usually concentrated on instructional objectives and the presentation and sequencing, (or the dynamic simulation) of content, in the design of computer-assisted learning (CAL) activities. However, other factors are equally important: (1) the “sociostructure” (who works with whom and under what social rules) is crucially important for educational CAL where social cooperativeness and responsibility goals are always as important as the specific individual skills acquired; (2) the computerized “learner-support-system” (review, hints, calculate, printout, map, learning-strategy advice, etc.) is extremely important in all kinds of computer-assisted education and training. Lack of attention paid to the educational impact of the sociostructure leads to mis-educational phenomena such as that of the “closet computer queen”-the intelligent pupil whose social exchange skills are negligible who is sent down the hall to work on the Apple or PET in the broom closet and who develops ever more technical competence at the expense of social competence. Learner competition, pitting individual against individual is generally detrimental [ l] yet much of the current CAL studyware which does in fact involve more than one learner at a time, does so via direct competition. Studyware which requires pairwise or group coo~erat~un on-line needs to be developed and researched. Some of the work of one of the authors, Claude Lebel, in this direction will be described here. An obvious form of learner support is simply to provide enough time on the computer for the learning activity to make a real difference to the learner’s thinking and problem-solving. This is particularly important when micro-world languages such as LOGO, Micro-PROLOG and SMALLTALK are being used. Mistaken aspirations toward fairness often lead to the provision of only a few minutes a week of on-line time to each student. Such “gruel-&ble” CAL is merely a cosmetic, not a real educational enhancement. The Lincoln School project of Papert et af.[Z], indicates that about 40 h of on-line work is needed for most children to learn the “core programming” problem-solving skills which they believed to be essential. In both projects described here learners had what initially seemed like ample time on the machines to develop the target skills, but in both cases some learners clearly would have benefited from much more time, had it been available. Strategic, tactical and recapitulation related forms of learner support have been included in various CAL projects[3,4] but much research remains to be done to ascertain the most cost-beneficial forms of provision of these kinds of learner support. The work of one of the authors, Lionel Douglas, has been carried out with the intention of making a contribution in this area. The general question of how much, and what kind of advice, and from whom, should the on-line learner have is what we are addressing here. If you believe that the basic educational goal is the cultivation of globally responsible potent autonomy, then the concept of “learner-control” in CAL is inherently very appealing. A number of experiments have been done which on the surface seem to deprecate the use of learnercontrolf5,6], but when examined in detail they are seen to show that yearner-control without adequate learner-support is what is ineffectual. Learner-support is needed in the form of advance briefing and goal orientation, and advanced organizers. It is needed in the form of in-progress aids: entailment graphs, glossaries, calculators, memory-support and human buddy support. Finally it is needed in the form of diagnostics with explanations and advice as to what remedial investigation and exercises are needed when specific objectives prove difficult to reach.