|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction |
|
|
One of the most contentious issues in the field of Instructional Design is that of User or Learner Control. The greatest advantage claimed for CBI is that it can allow for personalized instruction. Ultimately one can imagine a computer system which gains a profile of the user (level of motivation, degree of knowledge, preferred learning style, etc.) and will adjust the material to be presented according to this. However, such a system is a long way off and so, for now, pesonalization of material is achieved by granting the user control of the how the material is accessed. Unfortunately, research does not tend to confirm that this is effective and the situation is further confused by the recent emergence of CBI materials which use hypertext and hypermedia principles, the very essence of which is seen to be to give the user complete control of the learning environment. Much CBI material is based on behaviourist approaches and is very structured. Giving users complete control over such materials would tend to destroy their instructional intent and so would have a negative effect. However, new technologies such as Hypermedia and Multimedia cry out for the granting of user control, especially when they are based on a constructivist approach and this could result in the whole user control situation having to be re-examined. |
|
|
|
|
The Case for and against User Control |
|
|
Friend and Cole (1990, 47) state that they believe that learner control is one of the elements that make computer based instruction (CBI) effective. To define the term, they cite Milheim (1989) when they state that it "refers to allowing the learner some control in an individualised lesson. The learner may control lesson pace, sequence, content, or feedback. This is in contrast to program control of CBI, where the computer program controls the flow of the lesson". Another important aspects of CBI materials is that they are interactive, and Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat (1991, 13) state that with interaction comes the implication that the "programs hand over some degree of control of the learning experience to the learner". They note that the computer is not the only instructional medium which allows learners to control the learning experience. Books, for example, allow the learner a great degree of freedom in the way in which they access information, however, "What makes the computer unique is its potential to respond to the learner. A responsive device provides for unprecedented learner control". Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat, (1991, 13) state that the area of user control is complex and that there are different types of user control but that, basically, the concept is quite simple: By giving learners greater control over various aspects of instruction, such as pacing and sequencing, they can tailor the instruction to their own style of learning, thereby enhancing the efficacy and efficiency of learning. Furthermore, this greater freedom should motivate students, thus enhancing learning even more (Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat, 1991, 13). In discussing the need for user control, Relan (1991, 12) argues that frequently students can make appropriate decisions as to which is the appropriate instructional activity for them. He gives as an example the use of practice items. Some students may feel that they require a number of items in order to learn a particular concept, while others will require fewer, or maybe even none. He concludes "In effect, the unique needs of students may be more efficiently met by providing individuals with control of their activities that comprise the instruction." Relan (191, 12) states that there are "several cognitive and affective reasons ... for giving control of instruction to learners". Citing Stipek and Weisz (1981) he claims that "It offers a means of individualizing instruction, increases learners' feelings of perceived control and self-efficacy" and, citing Kinzie and Sullivan (1989), Lepper (1985) and Malone (1981) that it improves motivation. Merrill (1987), he states, contends that learners themselves arrive at self-determined instructional strategies which are optimal, when given an opportunity to exercise choice over them (Relan 1991, 12). Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat (1991, 13) also discuss the advantages of giving the user control and, citing Hannafin and Colamaio (1987), suggest that it allows "greater individualisation of instruction, increased sense of personal responsibility for learning, and the potential to optimise learning efficiency". Hannafin and Peck (1988, 203) argue that the granting of control to students affects their status in a positive fashion: Learner control transfers the responsibility for learning from the designer or the computer to the student. Instead of being the object of a CAI lesson, the student is placed in a position of importance and control. This may be one of the most important outcomes of learner control, since students should assume as much personal responsibility for success and failure as is reasonable. Barker (1990, 134-5) defines a series of paradigms that can be used in designing CBI materials and one of these is the user control paradigm. He warns that CBI designers using this paradigm must be aware of the significance of user control: That is, students should be made to feel that they are in control of what is happening during an interactive learning lesson. The learner control paradigm is therefore primarily concerned with specifying the nature of the facilities that should be provided within the dialogue system in order to facilitate this requirement. Facilities must be provided to enable the student to select and control:
While there appear to be some very good reasons for giving users complete control over their learning environment, the situation is not as clear cut as it might seem at first. Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat (1991, 13), for example, caution that: The empirical data, however, suggest that the story is not a simple one. These data include [conclude?] that total learner control is beneficial only to those who are already somewhat knowledgeable about a domain or who are generally high-achievers. Although it may initially seem to be the case, increasing learner control is not commensurate with increasing the quality or quantity of interactivity offered by an instructional system. This messages is reiterated by a number of other writers. Park (1991, 24), for example cites Hannafin and Colamaio (1986), Tennyson (1981), Tennyson and Buttrey (1980) and Wydra (1980) to conclude that: The instructional principle of "learner-control" has been an appealing issue in education because of its potential possibility to increase students' motivation, to develop self-learning ability, and, consequential, to yield the best learning achievement. However, many researchers who have investigated the instructional effects of "learner-control" have failed to provide empirical evidence for its positive effect. Hannafin and Peck (1988, 202) citing Hannafin (1984) and Steinberg (1977) give the same message "Whereas this point has a great deal of intuitive appeal, and an enormous amount of CAI design and programming energy has been consumed in deference to this point, much of the current research contraindicates unrestricted learner control". Relan (1991, 12) claims that the concept of user control is one of the most important unresolved issues in the field of computer based instruction with questions such as "who should be given what kind of control for which types of instructional tasks?" being asked. Citing the work of Fisher, Blackwell, Garcia, and Greene, 1975; Hannafin, 1984; Snow, 1980; Ross and Rakow (1982), Tennyson, Christensen, and Park (1984) he states that "Empirical studies which have examined an assortment of cognitive and affective variables, such as attitudes, prior knowledge, anxiety, personality variables, and inquisitiveness, in conjunction with a variety of micro and macro level control strategies, have revealed that not all learners make effective choices when actually allowed to do so." Hooper and Hannafin (1988, 17-18), citing the work of Reigeluth and Stein (1983) and Tennyson, Christenson, and Park, (1984) express the same sentiment, suggesting that the instructional designer should "Allow the learner to determine lesson sequence [only] when content is familiar or poses little cognitive difficulty; provide guidance when learner control is selected". They state that "One of the goals of education is to produce independent learners capable of managing their own learning environments" and that "learner productivity improves with independence". They suggest that computer based education is a means of producing independent learners who are capable of determining their own specific sequence through a lesson. They claim, however, that many students cannot achieve this goal as: research suggests many students are incapable of reaping the benefits of certain types of lesson control. Many are unsuccessful when given the opportunity to control the sequence of instruction, the number of questions to answer, and the length of presentation. Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat (1991, 13) citing the work of Ross and Morrison, (1988) and Higginbotham-Wheat (1990) state that "Research indicates that allowing all but the brightest and most knowledgeable free rein at controlling sequencing, pacing, amount of practice, and level of difficulty results in disappointing performance". They claim that giving too much control to the majority of learners is "like giving them "enough rope to hang themselves with"" and they call this "the too-much-rope syndrome". They also cite the work of Gray (1988) who found that "too much control over the branching of instruction may even lead learners to acquire negative attitudes towards the lesson". This study by Gray (1988) was also cited by Friend and Cole (1990, 48). In his study on sequencing control it was found that "the control of sequence had a positive effect upon comprehension, but not effect upon retention". It was, however, noted that the learner control group expressed more negative attitudes toward the CBI than did the non-control group. Gray speculates that this is due to the fact that the users who have control have more decisions to make; "Because two complex decisions must be made at one time [determine their answer and decide where to go to], too much sequence control may serve to distract students". It can be argued, however, that this situation only arises in tutorial type materials and would not be relevant for other forms such as hypertexts. A variety of other aspects of user control have been investigated. Friend and Cole (1990, 47) suggest that the effects of learner control may vary according to such factors as the age of the user, the type of CBI material being used, the nature of the control given, and perhaps the user's prior knowledge. It would appear reasonable to add to this, the level of the user's familiarity of the computer; it could be suggested that a user who is comfortable with the computer would accept more readily a high level of learner control than someone who is ill at ease with the machine. If this argument is accepted then it seems reasonable to extend it to say that a higher degree of user control should become acceptable as more and more people gain increased access to, and familiarity with, computers. Friend and Cole (1990, 47) state that the preferences for learner control may be linked to the cognitive style of the learner and they cite Carrier et al. (1984) in describing cognitive style as referring "to the consistencies in the way one perceives, encodes, stores, and retrieves information". A description of cognitive style that would seem to be more pertinent to the area of instructional design is that of Riding and Cheema (1991, 194), "a person's typical or habitual mode of problem solving, thinking, perceiving and remembering". Friend and Cole (1990, 47) further cite Carrier et al. (1984) to claim that "Levels of field independence have a significant impact" and "Although field independent learners are more likely to restructure presentations, when given options for learner control in CBI they did not select more options than field dependent subjects". Unfortunately, these two statements would appear to contradict one another. This issue is further clouded by McKenna (1990, 435) who argues that measures of field dependence are measures of cognitive ability and not cognitive style. Witkin and Goodenough's (1981 cited in Riding and Cheema 1991, 198) claim that: field dependence/field-independence cognitive style continuum affects preference for, and response to, different kinds of learning/teaching methods. Whilst field dependent individuals have a preference to learn in groups and to interact frequently with one another as well as the teacher, field independent learners may respond better to more independent and more individualised approaches. Also, field independent learners are more likely to have self-defined goals and to respond to intrinsic reinforcement, whilst field dependent learners require more extrinsic reinforcement and more structured work by the teacher. Whereas the field independent learners prefer to structure their own learning, and like to develop their own learning strategies, field dependent learners may need more assistance in problem solving strategies or more exact definitions of performance outcomes. From this, it would be expected that the level of field dependence/independence would affect the level of learner control required by the learner. It is not known, however, what type of CBI material Carrier et al. used in their study, but as it was published in 1984, it is fair to assume that it was of a tutorial nature which could not offer the same degree of learner control as, for example, a hypertext. It would be interesting to examine this learner control/field dependent - independent issue using a highly interactive hypertext or hypermedia. Burwell (1991, 37) conducted a study to investigate "The interaction of learning styles with learner control treatments in an interactive videodisc lesson" (in fact only the field dependent/independent learning style was considered). He used eighty seven college students (45 male and 42 female) who were randomly assigned to three groups. The control group worked with a printed study guide, the first experimental group worked with a videodisc based tutorial which presented information in a linear fashion with no student control, and the third worked with a videodisc based tutorial in which the user could exert control (it would appear that the validity of the control group could be questioned as the use of videodisc compared to normal text based materials would bring with it increased motivation, etc.). All students were given a pre and post test and were classified as being either field dependent of independent using the Closure Flexibility Test. Burwell's (1991, 42) conclusions drawn from this study were that: in visually enriched instruction, learners process information differently than in traditional settings. These differences are at variance with the traditional thinking about how field dependents and field independents behave in regard to control options for learning. The results of this study show that field dependents thrive on personal control of learning when aided with appropriate instructional advice. By taking longer to process this advice and being attentive to cues, the field dependent learner does better than being led unaided through the instructional process. He cautions, however, that: ... the issues between learner characteristics and learner control within instructional processes remain quite complex. Many factors could influence such relationships, especially in the context of computer-assisted instruction. The quality of computer generated graphics, the quality of visual information, and the amount of time spent processing information - all can influence the differences in which learners perceive a visual display and comprehend its meaning. Burwell (1991, 42) suggests that there is a need to research the effects of visual information to determine when it becomes an advantage or disadvantage to the learner, especially in regard to different learning styles. Friend and Cole (1990, 47) suggest that specific personality traits can be used to identify how effectively learner control is used in interactive CBI and they cite a study by Kern and Matta (1988) which concluded that "sense-thinking individuals had slightly better performance in areas regarding learner control of pacing and sequencing than intuitive-feeling individuals". What is not made clear is what is meant by a 'slightly better performance'. The issue would appear to be how much and how effectively learners use the control that is given to them. Munro, Feling, and Towne, 1985, cited in Friend and Cole (1990, 48) describe a study in which the users of CBI material had control over the feedback that was generated. This feedback was either provided immediately or could be called up by the users at their discretion. In this case, superior achievement was indicated when the users had control over the feedback. In an attempt to explain why research does not support the theory of user control, Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat (1991, 13), while discussing interaction in CBI, stated that: The reason for disappointing results may be that learner control simply shifts the locus of control from the computer (where the computer controls all aspects of the learning experience) to the learner. As locus of control shifts from one party to another, true interactivity is diminished. Indeed, the very term locus of control implies an imbalance that is the antithesis to true interactivity. Hooper and Hannafin (1988, 18) citing the work of Tennyson and Buttrey (1980) give an alternative reason: Learner control of such features is often ineffective because many learners are unable to determine how much instruction is adequate. However, when given notice of progress toward an objective and advice on how to proceed, students perform comparably under both guided and computer control. Thus, designers should be sensitive to the need for "expert" advice during learner control of lessons . In view of the evidence that indicates that high levels of user control in 'traditional' CBI materials causes problems for the majority of users, a number of writers propose that users should either be only given a degree of learner control, or that the control given should be accompanied by some means of guiding the user through the material. Schaefermyer (1990, 13), for example, states that "The notion of interactivity is realized when software allows the student to weave an individual educational environment". However, she is not advocating the granting of complete user control. The learner, according to her, should not be given the choice of selecting which areas of the CBI material to use or which problems should be tackled, rather she suggests that the student should only be given control "over rate of presentation, entry and exit, review of instructions if needed or desired, help menus or hints, and even the number of examples or problems to be solved". Hannafin and Peck (1988, 54-55) suggest that the material should be structured in the following way to allow for the effective use of user control: a. Make the modularity and any hierarchical arrangement of topics obvious to the learner (Caldwell, 1980). An alternative to restricting the amount of control that is given to users is to grant users control but at the same time offering help as to how they should progress through the material, Hannafin and Peck (1988, 203) suggest the use of Tennyon's (1984) Advisement strategy. This presents users with a progress report, a list of options available and a suggestion as to which of these the user should take. Relan (1991, 12) cautions that while modern software interfaces offer many options, it does not mean that all these options should be incorporated in the CBI material "irrespective of the type of content, learner characteristics, and criterion tasks". He also states that Merrill (1987) suggests that "that learners should be given control, but if they do not make good use of it, the program should intervene and lead the student through instruction". Unfortunately, the term 'good use' was not defined. Relan also suggests the use of Tennyson's advisement system. Merrill et al. (1992, 6) state that: An adequate transaction should allow both learner and system controlled interactions. Learner control has attained widespread popularity in recent years but indications are that not every learner can make good decisions about his or her own learning. A transaction needs to have the capability to direct learner activity as well as having the learner control the interaction; it needs to include both learner controlled and system controlled interactions. The degree of learner control provided in any situation is a function of the familiarity, motivation, aptitude, and attitude of the individual learners involved. Hannafin and Peck (1988,10) argue that while some learners may be the best qualified to make decisions about their instruction, others might make ineffective choices. They continue: As might be predicted, the student is not always basing decisions on a genuine belief that educational objectives have been met. When in doubt as to whether to grant the student control of the course of a lesson, let the objectives of the lesson be the determining factor. Hannafin and Peck (1988, 53) advise caution. They suggest that an "appropriate amount of learner control" is allowed. They say that the issue of learner control is still unresolved and that "Although early guidelines for CAI promoted extensive learner control, including the ability to select the sequence of instructional modules and the amount of practice to be provided, current research indicates that learner control may not be advisable with certain categories of learners". They define an "appropriate amount of learner control" as being basically that the instructional designer has control over all the important things, and the user is given the impression of having control by making cosmetic changes to the material. An "appropriate amount" of learner control implies that matters of instructional integrity, such as important sequence decisions and presence of prerequisites, be controlled by the designer and not the learner. Matters of convenience and preference, such as the ability to review, exit, turn off music, or test out of certain instructional modules may be left to the learner (Hannafin and Peck 1988,53-4).. 'Traditional' computer based instruction materials, by their very nature, are well structured. For example, in a tutorial, if it is to be effective, the learner must be taken along a well structured path. While branching can be included to take learners to advanced or remedial sections, users would not normally be able to skip entire sections. Because of this, it would appear that granting only a degree of learner control does not represent a major problem. This would not be the situation, however, in the case of hypertext or hypermedia documents. As Marchionini (1988, 9) suggests: There are three main characteristics of hypermedia systems that have great potential for learning and teaching. First, hypermedia systems allow huge collections of information in a variety of media to be stored in extremely compact form and accessed easily and rapidly. and One of the most exciting potentials of hypermedia is the quality of learner control it allows. Marchionini (1988, 9) states that a major problem with this type of material is that teachers and instructional designers have to learn how to: shape this potential into quality learner control experiences. We want our students to learn to explore information freely and easily, but with purpose and discipline. The privilege of freedom demands responsibility; the responsibilities of using hyperdocuments include knowing when and how to stay oriented and attentive to goals. As an example of a hypertext system, Duffy and Bednar describe one that a student designed as part of their course: What is distinct in each of these examples is that there is no prespecification of content to learn nor any expectation that each learner will take the same thing away from the learning experience. As much as possible the activity that the student engages in is authentic. The role of the instructor is to model and guide. Additionally learner control - the learner's judgements as to what should be done and why - is seen as an integral part of the learning process. In each of these learning environments, it would be strange indeed to consider the nature of the task without learner control. The approach does not preclude guiding the student. Indeed, apprenticeship is central to the pedagogy (1991, 14-15). Because hypertext and hypermedia can be used to produced learning environments which are very different to traditional CBI materials, Bowers and Tsai (1990, 22) believe that it is appropriate to force a re-examination of the learner control issue in educational research. They state that: While much of the research on learner control has encompassed the allowance of a somewhat restricted freedom of movement between screens or discrete pieces of information, hypertext can facilitate the creation of connections or links within a large body of diverse pictures, facts, or activities; in this way, the learner is actively involved in building the learning environment. Relan (1991, 10) also emphasises the difference between hypertext and hypermedia materials and traditional forms of CBI. He says that the way that the information that they contain is accessed is different as it is non-linear in nature. Citing Jonassen (1986) he says that "A holistic, semantic network model in which information is stored over long-term periods (Jonassen, 1986) forms the foundation for this representation". He continues: Hypermedia applications are designed for iterations of greater complexity, where access to information does not follow a hierarchical mode. For example, an extensive database with an intricate system of nodes and links allows the user to look at the same piece of information from different perspectives and contexts. Thus, interaction is of more dynamic form, allowing users to create a sequence of information retrieval more suited to their own knowledge base (Relan 1991, 9-10). Park (1991, 10) states that it is claimed that hypermedia is an ideal medium for adaptive instruction. He cites Federio (1988) and Jonassen (1986, 1988, 1989a) as arguing that "the student can selectively study only the knowledge that is necessary and organized to match his or her cognitive learning capabilities, because a hypermedia program can store various types and levels of knowledge in many different modes with many alternative connections and structures". Because students have complete control over the hypermedia system, Park suggests that the use of hypermedia as an instructional delivery system should be determined after there has been a complete re-examination of the whole learner control issue. As user control is central to the use of hypermedia and the issue is so clouded, this would seem to be a reasonable suggestion. While hypertext and hypermedia systems have tremendous potential advantages, there are a number of major problems about their use that still have to be resolved. As such a system contains a very large amount of information that can be examined by the user in a non-linear sequence, navigation is a key problem in many systems with authors commonly talking about students being "lost in hyperspace". Another problem is how to ensure that the learner covers the basics (and do they need to cover them). In addition, writers who have already been cited talk about hypertext and hypermedia being able to bring about new ways of teaching and learning. A problem that currently exists with the use of such instructional media is that users are not familiar with working in this type of instructional environment and do not know how to adequately deal with them and so can become 'distracted'. Marchionini (1988, 9) states that distraction: is due to the high level of learner control that hypermedia systems provide. Although self-directed learning is a worthy general goal of education, freedom to learn is not a sufficient condition to assure effective learning. Freedom can be confusing because it increases decision-making load. Cognitive resources may be diverted from content and relationships as learners attend to navigational decision-making. Distraction is compounded by the vast quantities of information, easily accessible (a mouse click), much of which may be only peripherally relevant. The rich learning environment can easily become an environment of "hyperchaos". There is danger that students can either miss relevant instructional points entirely, or worse yet, form wrong interpretations of the information. Placing an inquisitive, undisciplined young learner in a rich hypermedia environment may be similar to giving a remote control unit to a student in front of a television with 80 channels of action programming. ... The issue becomes whether students should learn by "browsing the world" or staying "on task" according to the wisdom of their teachers. ... Introducing hypermedia may affect fundamental learning patterns in schools and certainly will affect instructional decison-making on the part of teachers. While Park (1991, 27) does not present any data to suggest that user control does not work with hypertext and hypermedia and has argued that the whole issue should be re-examined in the light of these new media, he makes an implicit assumption that it does not work by stating that: Important reasons as to why the learner-control principle is not effective for instruction are: In view of this, Park (1991, 27) states that until better techniques for implementing user control strategies have been devised, hypermedia CBI should only be used in situations where either the user control function is essential (e.g. in the case of electronic books, encyclopaedias, etc.) or it is known that the learners are capable of determining their own learning needs and, presumable (although not stated by Parks), have the cognitive ability to deal successfully with the system. A further problem to which no reference has been found in the literature is that, when a group of students was given complete user control over their own learning and no specific learning task was set, they devised their own; they copied down virtually everything that appeared on the screen. This is an example of how students have to be given the requisite skills if they are going to use such a system successfully. While the majority of writers see the users of hypertext and hypermedia system as having complete freedom of choice in sequencing their progression through the instructional material, Lanza (1991, 20) suggests that the user can be guided through the material by suitably structured links established by the courseware designer. He states that: The individuation of the links to be set up among the nodes in hypercourses is of extreme importance for promoting effective learning. In fact, the affective and mental involvement of learners during their interaction with the system depends heavily on links. Lanza (1991, 20) compares the use of hypertextual CBI system with the conventional teaching process. While "the hypertextual approach does not admit of any compulsion for users to follow particular paths" the conventional method of teaching is to lead "students along certain specific curricular paths". He argues, however, that in practice there need not be such an apparent dichotomy as: In the perspective of learner control, at the hypercourse design level, we can direct learners towards material, offering links which are useful to them. The learner is free to activate whichever link he (sic) wishes, but he (sic) is in practice limited necessarily to a choice from the range of possibilities established by the designers/authors of the hypercourse. To further reinforce the importance that he sees for the links in hypertextual materials, Lanza (1991, 20) states that: Links constitute the control tool of designers, who can "force" the student's itinerary by predisposing links with some topics/perspectives rather than others. The number and type of links depend exclusively on the hypercourse design and development team, who decide whether and what to link. One of the newer forms of instructional technologies to come on to the market is interactive videodisc. A videodisc can hold one hour of material (30 minutes each side) in the form of 54,000 individual frames per side. These frames can be viewed in 'real time', slow motion, or perfect freeze frame. The disc can be controlled by using a simple hand held controller, or by a computer. Research into the issue of user control in the case of interactive videodisc would appear to be more promising than for other computer based media. Friend and Cole report a variety of studies using videodisc technology and, in this case, user control appears to be beneficial. For example, Williams, Quinn and Gale (1983 cited in Friend and Cole 1990, 48) state that when using this technology which allows for free branching, "Students become more actively involved in their own learning". They also note that when instructional materials are personalized by the use of learner control, "achievement is significantly higher". Milheim (1989 cited in Friend and Cole 1990, 48) concludes that "In interactive videodisc CBI, the ability for learner control of pacing and sequencing resulted in more positive attitudes and student motivation". Balson, Ebner, Mahoney, Lippert and Manning (1986, cited in Friend and Cole 1990, 48) report that "Experimental groups exhibited faster training times, higher posttest evaluations, lower student stress, and greater satisfaction". According to Friend and Cole (1990, 48) who cite Gray (1988) the degree of branching from menus and the way in which the menu items are described appears to be important: Broad menus with meaningful category names produced higher retention of the content among subjects and the symbolic menu names also produced a positive attitude towards the CBI. |
|
|
|
|
Conclusion |
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of 'traditional' forms of computer based instruction, it would appear that complete user control for the majority of users presents problems and should not be granted. It can be argued, however, that such materials are very structured in their design and so yielding control to the user would destroy this structure and so negate their effectiveness. This is not the case, however, for the newer types of CBI technologies such as hypertext and hypermedia which are designed to give users unstructured access to the material that they contain. These are, however, new media and a lot has to be learned about their use. Designers have to determine appropriate ways of structuring material to enable efficient access to it by users and design appropriate tools to allow efficient navigation through the materials. In addition, effective strategies have to be devised for users of these systems so that they can gain the maximum benefit from the instruction. It would appear reasonable, therefore, to suggest that at this stage in the development of such media, that some system of guidance should be established to help learners to use these systems efficiently. This topic will be dealt with in more detail when various instructional strategies are investigated. |
|
    |
|
|
Author: Tony Brown Created: 25.6.97 © The University of New England, NSW, Australia |
