Speculations on Design Team Interactions. (technology in education) JOHN HEDBERG; ROD SIMS.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2001 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

This article examines the design approaches possible with modem views of learning and the outcomes being achieved. It speculates that new types of design dialogues are important if the products developed are to effectively combine the skills of both the educationalist and the technical expertise of other members of the development team. In the design process while most models focus on the learning task, with interactive environments it is how the user or learner will undertake the task with the tools and functionality built into the software that is more important for creating motivation and engagement. Consideration of the role of the learner as an actor in the interaction can be a useful organizing framework for designing "encounters."

The definition of an effective learning environment varies in the literature and is heavily influenced by the underlying philosophical orientation of the designer. In this article, the authors illustrate that different assumptions about what learning is required, and what outcomes are expected, in turn define the functions and roles available to learners, and how they engage with the learning tasks. The authors contend that to create learning environments that can be learner self-modified and selected, more open-ended approaches to the design process are required.

As instructional designers, we typically were taught a systematic process, which deconstructed the design task into a series of steps, which in turn follow inexorably, feeding data from each into the next step. However, in practice, recursion and reassessment are required to fine tune and create innovative solutions combining educational thinking and software engineering. It is the authors' contention that new dialogues and design methods are required if innovative learning environments are to be produced, especially as technical complexities require development teams with a range of specialist skills. Further, it is contended that the more active role of the learner/ user in the context of educational software has not been fully appreciated and should be re-conceptualized to emphasize interactions that include cognitive components.

As interactive learning environments are designed, there are several elements that need to be balanced to support the common understandings of all the design team members. Each member can provide special emphasis and create a specific element for the product; however, unless this is accomplished in a collaborative context the successful integration of these elements will be limited. In the development of any learning environment there are four key elements: (a) information structure and its representation; (b) instructional design and the underlying learning beliefs; (c) interaction possibilities and how they are designed, and (d) interface structures and the visual presentation of each of the previous elements. It is contended that these four Is are critical to the team members' understanding of the project and their ability to contribute to it. In turn, the ways in which the team collaborates around these four elements will determine both the quality of the computer-based learning environment and the ways in which key sets of skills are woven into a final interactive product.

DEFINING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Consider the following relationship between design intention and what the teacher/instructor does with an interactive learning product. As shown in Figure 1, the potential exists for products designed using an instructivist position to be implemented using constructivist techniques. However, the opposite is more likely to occur.

First, there is always the possibility of using a product (learning environment) in ways other than what the designer intended. For example, it is easy for an instructor to present what might otherwise be designed as a constructivist environment into a didactic task such as "find the answer to a highly structured question." Thus the implementation might change the designers' intentions and either constrain an exploratory environment or conversely enable the user to explore what is a highly constrained environment. The second option might be best illustrated through an example that we have seen. Once a histology lecturer was dismayed that students seemed to be spending significant time working through a question-and-answer package where they were shown a slide and several alternative explanations. They would choose the right answer, then return and explore each other answer and the explanation as to why it was not the best choice. While the lecturer was dismayed that the package didn't seem to be being used t o improve examination knowledge, the students found that it did provide an environment which, because of the option of allowing each answer to be explored, enabled the user to determine the nuances in answers and hence, use a drill-and-practice program to generate fine aspects of discrimination between the answers. The students thus implemented an instructivist package in a constructivist way.

TECHNOLOGY TOOLS AND THEIR USE

Not only does the design philosophy impact of the products developed, but the tools provide a world-view, which can prove limiting. The past four decades have seen a cyclic process whereby educators, daunted at the thought of computer programming, have been presented with template tools to provide what has been termed "programmer-less authoring." For example, in the early 1980s when the public domain Tutor language was found to be too complex for teachers to use, a set of template products known as PLATO Courseware Development (PCD1) were introduced--the Drill and Practice Model, the Tutorial Lesson Model, and the Situation Simulation Model. The problem with these, and other similar tools, was that if used at face value, the output was often a manifestation of electronic page turning with minimal interactivity and engagement. The assumption was that if an instructional model (Tutorial, Drill, Simulation, etc.) could be embedded in a software development tool, the resulting courseware would be educational. Un fortunately, these templates created a barrier between the developer and the power of the computer--its ability to interpret instructions, analyse responses, and conditionally branch, depending on learner performance. These template-type tools are also employed today in Merrill's [ID.sub.2] products (Merrill, Li, & Jones, 1990) and the latest Internet products such as WebCT, TopClass, Blackboard, and Learning Space.

One of the questions therefore is whether the quality of computer-based learning environments is compromised by a set of barriers being imposed between designer and developer. How can we create an environment where technology skills and pedagogical skills can be communicated between all parties in the product development process? The following summary expands each of the elements previously identified to detail the complex relationship between the designer and the technical developer.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN PROCESSES

With complex interactive learning environments, are we designing instructional resources or learning tools? Can we use an instructional development methodology to create constructivist tools? To what extent do programmers need to understand the processes of courseware development process? Are the principles specified by protagonists such as Gagne, Briggs, and Wager (1992) relevant to the current web-based learning environments?

By addressing these questions a context for the dialogues considered necessary between programmer, designer and other team members is provided. To this end, there are three starting issues that need to be addressed: (a) information structure, (b) interface structures, and (c) interaction possibilities.

Information Structure

The importance of information design and communication design (Shedroff, 1994) is becoming critical as more individuals are taking responsibility for creating computer-based learning materials. Whereas printed materials may have been formatted by a desktop publisher prior to distribution to students, teachers can now create small components of courses and insert them into a template system. For example, in a web-based environment the creation and maintenance of the template system itself remains the realm of the programmer while creation of materials can be undertaken by a teacher with little additional guidance. If the created materials are not designed to enable effective and flexible communication of ideas, then problems may exist in the extent to which those ideas are learned or understood. Conversely, if the template functions effectively but does not have the design structure to enable the effective communication of information, the learning outcomes may also be affected adversely.

An excellent example of the use of an effective pedagogical structure is the WebQuest series of sites [less than]http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/webquesthtml[greater than]. The templates are more focused on the learning processes and outcomes than filling in templates which can be managed by a system.

Interface Structures

In creating computer-based educational resources, the interface between learner and content can determine the ultimate success of the project. In this instance a dialogue is necessary between the designer, the graphics specialist, the audio-video specialist, and the programmer. Not only must the interface be consistent with the context or situation of the application, but also its presentation (information design) must be specifically focused on the learnings outcomes and the learners themselves.

Another simple example might provide insights into this consistency problem. Often information is coded by intention, and sometimes by design. In one of our projects, the graphic designer made a visual design decision to include a notebook with several tabs and a clip for visually holding the notebook closed. In the information design we had reasons and functions attached to each of the tabs, but nothing attached to the clip. At the first trial of the package with the intended audience, fresh eyes immediately understood the meaning in the visual representation and clicked on the clip. Nothing happened! A design decision in the interface was in conflict with the planned functionality.

Interaction Possibilities

In a computer-based learning environment, there are elements that may interact: social interactions such as learner-learner, learner-teacher, and technology interactions such as learner-content, learner-pedagogical strategy, and learner-interface. When working in such an environment, the transactional distance (the physical or conceptual gap between designer and learner) can compromise these interactions (Moore, 1991). By focusing on the options for interactivity available through technological functionality and pedagogical preference, we propose a communications model, based on the notion of encounters, by which a range of interactions can be implemented to enhance learner engagement and subsequent learning.

The word encounter is defined as "a meeting with a person or thing, especially casually or unexpectedly" (Macquarie Dictionary, 1998, p. 365). This appears to be most applicable to what happens when users first activate a Computer Enhanced Learning (GEL) application. While they may be familiar with the content and aims of the overriding curriculum, their first encounter with a computer-based application will potentially be confronting. As learners work through educational applications the casual and unexpected aspects attributed to encounters can be equally applicable to the interactive experience.

Using the idea that communication between designer and learner is an important aspect to be addressed in the development of GEL applications, the use of encounters as a means to contextualize this communication is the focus of this section. The following introduces a range of situations that may be described in terms of an encounter between user and designer and the implications for development projects.

Introductory encounters. When the user first commences working with an application, an attempt to make introductions between the major players is recommended. Depending on the structure of the application, this may involve actual members of the development team presenting the background to the design and its intended operation, or the use of characters within a microworld and the roles they are to play in the subsequent presentations.

Learners also have the responsibility to introduce themselves and to inform the designer of their experience and expectations. In this way the program can use the information to configure the way in which the application will be presented and the material necessary for the learner to progress through the content. The notion of an introductory encounter can also be applied to the parting encounter, where the learner is recognized for the role they played and information provided. It is a relatively simple technique to record user responses and integrate them into future presentations, placing value on them rather than identifying them as data, is a means to enhance the purposeful nature of the title.

Controlling encounters. In human-human encounters, the participants may operate equitably or one may dominate the process. In the case of interactive applications, the two-way exchange of information has been demonstrated as essential. However, based on the experiences of the authors, the users are often given little opportunity for control over the content, just the navigation and selection of high-level menu items. The solution seems relatively simple, if interactions are structured so the user could control or act as an integral character in the sequence, then it becomes more of their choice of how the presentation is revealed.

Strategic encounters. It is also important that the encounters between learner and designer be strategically positioned throughout the application, instigated by either of the two parties. While some attempt has been done to achieve this with agents, the response from that agent is generally prescribed given a certain condition, if activated by the user, rather than dependent on the parameters defined by the user. While these may be quite similar, the issue is the extent to which the user has the illusion that they are being communicated with on an individual and personal level.

Sympathetic encounters. Finally, the encounters between learner and designer need to manifest a level of sympathy and tolerance. There is no reason why an application cannot indicate an inability to undertake a task or to be apologetic for being limited in its range of responses. The underlying argument being presented is one of personalizing the computer, of assigning them the role of designer, and continually ensuring that the learner is comfortable with their progress.

Encounter theory. In the same way Kearsely and Schniederman (1998) proposed that an engagement theory provided a set of prescriptions for successful computer-mediated communication, the encounters presented in this analysis provide a framework for what might be termed encounter theory. If the development of applications is considered as a sequence of inter-related encounters, then the interactions provided to the user are of consequence, as they have been presented as integral to the operation of the application. In addition, navigation through the application is more directed, destinations reached are predicted rather than unexpected, and the content encountered valued for its purpose.

Introducing the importance of encounters, in addition to communication and control, has implications for the production team as these options significantly affect the overall design and development effort, and the subsequent project costs. However, if the graphical aspects of the project are given less emphasis and the relationship between designer and learner greater importance, then the cost may be higher but the returns potentially greater. As Reeves (1999) declared, we know how to build these applications, we just need to do it better. Envisaging the application as a series of encounters rather than a means to structure content is one way this might be achieved.

LEARNER AS ACTOR

There is also a need to better understand the role of the learner in these environments. While it is speculated that a mix of skills is required, constructing appropriate environments is the objective of programmer-designer dialogues. To date the production of educational multimedia (desktop or online) has focused on two major factors: the technology and the content. If an appropriate instructional strategy is applied to the content for technological delivery then it should work. But the technology provides an interactive environment where the learner has control and the product, depending on its complexity, adapts to both the learner's direction and performance. At the same time, we continue to be confronted by reports that the technology is not consistently effective.

Given these conditions, and the need to focus on the dialogue between team members, it may also be useful to focus on the role undertaken by the learner. In the past, many applications attempted to present information to the learner, have them respond in some way, and then generate feedback to that response. While this represents a basic level of interactivity, it does not allow them to manipulate and experiment (Aldrich, Rogers, & Scaife, 1998).

Perhaps if the role of the learner is included in the process, conceptualizing them as an actor in which they can either follow the prescriptions of a designer (director) or perhaps engage in some form of improvisation (constructionism) then the elements of theatre, narrative, and magic suggest possible solutions to human-computer interface problems. In this way learners may take a more dominant role in the structures conceptualized by the designers and implemented by other members of the design team.

Much of the western educational system is, or has been, based on the formal classroom environment and the dominant role of the teacher. There is little doubt that this system will prevail and acknowledge the extensive range of successful teacher-student interactions. However, the advent of computer-based learning resources has extended the means by which learners can be emancipated from this environment. The discussion of interactivity, narrative and performance provides a context by which this emancipation may continue and develop. The following set of considerations are based on the preliminary outcomes from an as yet unpublished research study, and speculate that conceptualizing the learner as actor may provide a means to enhance learner-designer communications.

To date, many computer-based learning resources have placed the learner as observer (passive or active) in much the same way as members of an audience at a performance. However, this separation of actor and audience provides an essentially uni-directional communication--from stage to audience. If the learner were to take a position on stage, what might that mean for computer-based learning and how might it be implemented?

Designers might extend the concepts proposed by Hannafin and Peck (1988) to create scenarios in which the learner has an opportunity to participate. This would involve the learner being asked how familiar they are with the application and the extent to which they would like orientation to the application. The tour might allow the user to ask questions for clarification, in much the same way that an actor and director peruse the script and work through a series of rehearsals. Once comfortable with the location and prepared for "opening night," learners need to be made familiar with the controls (the stage, props, and other actors)--not in their use but in their purpose--and the relevance of their appearance on the display (location on the stage). By using a narrative or story to define the performance in which the learner is participating, a logical and meaningful series of interactions can be employed.

A contrary argument to such design structures is that they are too expensive or too difficult to implement, but this is not necessarily the case. If computer-based learning resources continue to be used then it is important that they be effective. To date this has not been achieved consistently, so if more effective resources can be structured, then the initial costs will be outweighed by the benefits. Similarly, as technology is developing so rapidly the creation of what now appear to be complex environments will become components of the development software.

The integration of the learner into the overall process may provide an environment in which the communication is focused on learner and teacher (designer) rather than learner and computer (content). Laurillard (1993) proposed the discursive, adaptive, interactive, and reflective elements of education media in relation to effective teacher-learner communications. Continuing to develop the way in which people work with computers in learning contexts will provide the means by which these elements will continue to be successfully integrated into computer-based environments. Conceptualizing the learner as actor may provide a means to achieve this.

THE SKILLS OF MULTIMEDIA DEVELOPMENT

Given theses four elements, Figure 2 provides a means for identifying the areas where new skills or understandings are required--the intersection between designer and programmer. Those primarily involved in either education or learning or technical implementation need to understand those skills that are pertinent to the interactive learning environment. (Kennedy & McNaught, 1997). It is not simply a case of programmers understanding education and educators understanding programming, but that a new set of skills are required by both groups to gain maximum value from the technology and maximum effectiveness in terms of learning.

When Computer Enhanced Learning (GEL) was originally conceptualized, the development team was designated as the subject matter expert (SME), instructional designer (ID) and programmer--three separate individuals or groups. The ID structured the content into a learning context which was then programmed for delivery by computer; implicit in this structure was the passing of content from SME to ID and the delivery specifications from ID to programmer, without necessarily creating a team environment in which arising issues could be discussed. The scenario of the ID having little knowledge of software development procedures or computer capabilities and the programmer little notion of instructional strategy was quite possible. The focus of this special issue suggests that this barrier between education and technology continues to the present day.

Recognizing the problems with this condition, software manufacturers created development tools known as authoring systems designed specifically for educators to create their own courseware, without requiring the knowledge or resources of a programmer. However, the structure of these tools was often so restrictive that the courseware created did not include the type of interactions that would be effective in the learning situation. Unless the developer also had some programming expertise, the products often resembled little more than electronic books.

While contemporary tools are becoming more complex, and therefore more open to the development of more complex applications, from recent observations of a range of CD-Rom and web-based applications [1], too many continue to demonstrate glitz rather than quality, reinforcing the need for additional skills in the design process. What is often presented is evidence of skills in animation and web-based delivery, but the underlying content continued to be presented as if in a textbook, occasionally enhanced by multimedia elements.

Interactivity is a product not only of the software development tools but also the learning strategy devised by the teacher or instructional designer. However, one element often missing is the creation of materials in which the learner is conceived not as a passive observer or remote manipulator but as an active experimenter, controller, and creator of learning materials. The extent to which the current theory and research approaches this option is considered in the following sections.

Interactive Design

Interactive design refers to the ability of members of the development team to integrate the structure of the content materials and the preferred learning outcomes in such a way that the learner is able to use a set of interactive constructs effectively to both work with the content and access the content. It is suggested that development projects tend to focus on the structure of the content in terms of an instructional strategy (pedagogy) and the implementation of this strategy using a development tool (technology) without also considering the role of the learner in working with the material.

Information Design

Many products are strong in this area. The design and linkages between the ideas often follows standard structures, either hierarchies, sequences or some concept-linking matrix or map. The challenge with interactive design is to ensure that the information is presented in a visual and accessible way that the new tools such as search engines and interactive hyperlinks can efficiently take the user to the requested information. Typically in a CD-Rom product information may be found by topics or within text. This learner-controlled exploration can be supported or limited by the technical tools incorporated within the product. The Web, by contrast, may always be accessed and the design of pages manipulated by the user.

Metaphor and Interface

The link between a visual idea and how it is presented and the functionality of a product is extremely close. With the idea of learner as actor, the interface needs to adopt some framework metaphor that reduces the time to understand the expected methods for its manipulation. Consider the simple devices of forward and next buttons: increasingly, they mean little in terms of how the information is structured or stored, but they facilitate rapid movement within and around a learning environment. Inconsistencies or extrapolations beyond the metaphor pose learning challenges and reduce the time required to understand the operation. In educational settings, the time required to learn a content-specific product may reduce its acceptability within the classroom. Several theoretical studies have focused on this area of learning the interface. (See for example the work on cognitive load by Sweller, e.g., Chandler & Sweller, 1991).

Communication

In an analysis of interactivity and its relationship to computer-based instruction, Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat (1991) commenced their discussion by examining elements of interpersonal communication. Using Berlo's (1960) levels of communicative interdependence and Selnow's (1988) features of interaction, they argued that these positions held lessons for designers of instructional software. More explicitly, Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat (1991, p. 12) compare the lack of interactivity of page-turning applications to those where the program "allows the learner to become a part of its world, where the computer seems to disappear and is replaced by an entity whose own responses are highly related to the user's input." This notion of the user entering into a partnership with the computer is echoed by the mutual environments proposed by Schwier and Misanchuk (1993).

Identifying similarities between interactivity and interpersonal communication is important because it provides a means to focus on the effects that the learner and instructional material (originating from a designer) have on each other. One example of this is provided by Heeter (1989), who identified six aspects which provide a useful means to conceptualize these associations:

* Choice and selectivity: the more choices and the ability to make selections from those choices increases the interactivity. This position implies that the doing of something increases the interactivity. While this is correct in a sense, the doing should also be meaningful to the learner and a component of their overall learning strategy.

* Effort: the higher the ratio between user and computer activity, the greater the interactivity. Again it can be argued that this effort must be productive rather than interfering; there is little use in making the effort if all the energy is placed into trying to understand the learning environment being presented.

* Responsiveness: the extent to which a computer responds appropriately to human input affects the interactivity. The determinant of 'what is appropriate to who' is critical in this context.

* Monitoring: greater interactivity is provided when more sophisticated forms of user tracking and record-keeping are maintained. The implication therefore is that the more data an application maintains about user performance and navigation, the more adaptive it will be.

* Addition of information: when users are able to add material to the knowledge base, the more interactive the system becomes. In many instances this has not been a feature of GEL applications, where the content has been structured explicitly by the development team.

* Facilitation of interpersonal communication: the extent to which a computer emulates and/or enables interpersonal communication will impact on the effectiveness of the interactivity. If the learner believes that they are engaging in a meaningful dialogue, then some form of communication will be taking place; the extent to which this has to emulate a human-human conversation compared to the individual's comfort level with the give and take of information is a question to be considered.

While these elements are important, the language used to specify the characteristics of these dimensions can be limiting. For example, the responsiveness component alludes to an appropriate response being made by the computer--but what is appropriate and for whom? Is it the designer's assumption of appropriate responses to predetermined inputs or responses perceived by the user to be appropriate to their input? It is the latter aspect that has become the focus of contemporary communication studies and requires acknowledgment.

CONCLUSIONS

This article speculated on the ways in which dialogues between members of the development team need to be reassessed. From the initial applications of CBT when development was seen as tri-functional but independent--instructional designer, subject matter expert, and programmer--to the mid-1980s when authoring templates, at least from a marketing perspective, eliminated the instructional designer and programmer. The 1990s have not only seen a new set of skills in terms of understanding technology, but the establishment of the team as an integral component of any development activity. Without involving all members of the development team in all phases of the production, the likelihood of a technology-pedagogy mismatch is increased.

In addition, the development team may have to consider another element in the design process. As well as focusing on the design of interface, the structure of content and the creation of instructional interactions a fourth factor--the learner. How they operate within this environment remains a critical component of educational success and modelling their operation within a technology-based environment on that of actor in a play or character in a narrative may provide a higher level of engagement and learning than previously realized.

Notes

(1.) These applications were submitted to the 1998 and 1999 ASCILITE Awards, an annual competition conducted by the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). During this period the second author was convenor of the judging panel and was privy to the documentation, products, judging process, and selection of award winners.

References

Aldrich, F., Rogers, Y., & Scaife, M. (1998). Getting to grips with "interactivity": Helping teachers assess the educational value of CD-ROMs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 321-332.

Berlo, D. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Borsook, T.K., & Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: What it is and what it can do for computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 31(10), 11-17.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.

Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Hannafin, M.J., & Peck, K.L. (1988). The design, development, and evaluation of instructional software. New York: Macmillan.

Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In J.L. Salvaggio & B. Jennings (Eds.), Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use, pp. 217-235. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998) Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.

Kennedy, D.M., & McNaught, C. (1997). Design elements for interactive multimedia. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 1-22. [Online]. Available: http://cleo.murdoch.eedu.au/ajet/ajet13/wi97pl.html

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.

Macquarie Dictionary (1998). The Macquarie concise dictionary, (3rd Ed.). Macquarie University, NSW: The Macquarie Library.

Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990). Second generation instructional design ([ID.sub.2]). Educational Technology, 30(2), 7-14.

Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6.

Reeves, T.C. (1999, June). A research agenda for interactive learning in the new millennium. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1999 EdMedia Conference, pp. 15-20. Seattle, USA. Charlotteville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Schwier, R., & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Selnow, G.W. (1988). Using interactive computer to communicate scientific information. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(2), 124-135.

Shedroff, N. (1994). Information interaction design: A unified field theory of design. [Online]. Available: http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/

WebQuest. [Online]. Available: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/webquest.html