LEARNING ENVIRONMENT DESIGN

In the second chapter was described the broad context for learning in the future and in the third were presented the learning technologies that will comprise this learning environment. Here, I will explore the processes through which these tools can be developed and made most useful. We are therefore talking here of technology as a design process, we are dealing with the 'how to' of system development. This chapter is contrastive in nature: it tackles the design process by examining current instructional design and evolving from it a rather different perspective on the process of designing learning materials. It may prove particularly provocative to those currently engaged in instructional design and educational technology broadly speaking.

ISD AND LED

The standard approach to instructional design has become known as instructional system design, or ISD for short. This approach is a goal-oriented design process that is geared to achieving learning effectiveness. Its purpose is to create effective instruction, i.e. instruction that will lead the student to mastery of the learning objectives set for it.

An alternative approach to instructional design is what can be called learning environment design, or LED for short. This approach is only loosely geared to instructional objectives, and much more tightly oriented to learner involvement with learning. Its aim is foremost to engage the learner in the subject being considered, i.e. to arouse and sustain epistemic curiosity while offering opportunities for learning. As John Seeley Brown once aptly put it in talking about the possibilities of intelligent tutors, what we want to do is to pull the learner into a subject, not push him through it.

The outcome of the ISD process is an instructional product (a lesson or a course) which is primarily characterized by the fact that the activities that comprise it are highly structured. They in fact constitute a sequence through which the learner is expected to proceed in order to optimally learn the skills or information being taught. Sequence is at the heart of the process, for instructional design is largely a matter of organizing learning events in a meaningful order. ISD essentially says this: if you want to optimally achieve these learning results, engage in the following learning events. ISD is very much a prescriptive process: it prescribes a course of action to achieve certain ends, the latter being the desired instructional outcomes of the instruction. Indeed, instruction of any kind can be said to be prescriptive, i.e. it directs the learner towards certain outcomes.

In contrast to this, the outcome of the LED process is a learning resource with which the student can interact in order to augment her knowledge or perfect certain skills. It is characterized not so much by its structure as by its engagement value. Sequence is of little concern. The instructional product is a learning environment that fosters learning rather than prescribe a set of specified learning activities. Learning will occur, but the degree of learning may not be readily determined.

Exactly how different are these two instructional design processes? Are they at heart the one and same process, albeit described from different perspectives, or are they truly quite distinct processes? Let's first consider what is behind the terminology used to characterize them, and then examine in detail the design activities each involves.

Instructional design focuses on the instructional side of the learning interaction: the emphasis lies in an intent to change the learner by structuring the situation in an appropriate manner. The instructor/designer is in charge and decides on the course of action. Learning environment design, on the other hand, focuses on the learning side of the interaction: the learner directs the interaction herself, constantly making decisions about what to learn and about the extent of her involvement.

Now, instructional design will only be effective in one of two ways. The first is to explicitly consider the attractiveness of the instructional materials being developed in addition to their structure, which is the main feature geared to their eventual effectiveness. This approach involves considerations akin to those of learning environment design. The second way instructional design seeks effectiveness is simply to consider structure and rely on the educational or training context to motivate the learners. In other words, forget about the intrinsic attractiveness of the materials, just structure them properly for learning and let the system organize the environment in such a way that the students will study the materials. The unfortunate state of affairs, currently, is that this second approach to instructional design is all too prevalent. Indeed, instructional theory has rarely considered attractiveness in the design of learning materials.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN ACTIVITIES

Instructional design is a systematic process for the preparation of either instructional plans or instructional materials. Instructional plans guide a teacher in delivering instruction, whereas instructional materials deliver the instruction themselves. The systematic process includes two principal sets of activities: defining and structuring the content to be taught, and defining and structuring the delivery and interactive mechanisms. These are the two core concerns of instructional design. In the tutorial processes discussed in the last chapter, they were referred to as focus selection and cognitive tasking. Here, we consider them in a broader fashion.

Defining and structuring the content to be taught in an instructional system involves processes called content analysis and task analysis. Task analysis is the more prominent of the two simply because a lot of what is taught involves performing tasks, be they psychomotor tasks or fully cognitive tasks. Examples abound: writing, reading, mathematics, aircraft maintenance, accounting, and so on. Content analysis, on the other hand, consists in identifying and structuring the non-task-oriented knowledge that constitutes much of our information world, such as knowledge of geography, or philosophy, or politics, etc. This type of analysis defines not only what is to be taught, but also, and most importantly for learning, the sequence of elements or tasks to be presented to the learner. The result from these analyses is a hierarchy of learning objectives that fully defines what learning is to take place and in what sequence it is to take place.

Defining and structuring the delivery of instruction involves decisions as to medium of information presentation (text, film, teacher delivery, etc.) and decisions regarding the specifics of how the learner will interact with the information (such as reading or listening, answering frequent questions, attempting problems, etc.). The former decisions are somewhat global in that they regard the overall structure of the course of instruction and include the management of the instructional process as a whole. The decisions regarding the tasking of the student, on the other hand, are much more specific, and can vary more easily over the time frame of instruction. Both types of decision are of course constrained by the content decisions made earlier, and indeed, by the very content itself. Instructing a student in handwriting or typing, for instance, cannot be done without active practice, nor can much of geography be learned without maps.

Thus, instructional design centers on processes that relate to the content of instruction: how that content is to be structured for optimal learning, and how it is to be presented, as well as interacted with. Learning environment design, as we shall presently see, is not so content-centered, although, like instructional design, it does involve decisions regarding learner interactions with knowledge.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT DESIGN

The primary aim in LED is to provoke curiosity. In this perspective, learning will occur not according to a pre-established instructional sequence of events, but instead in response to the user's evolving needs and interests. Here, the goals of learning are not pre-established by an instructional designer, but evolve with the context in which the learner finds herself from moment to moment. While instructional design subordinates everything to decisions about content, LED treats content decisions in a very different way: it emphasizes the interactions with content.

Defining and structuring learning content for a learning environment involves two processes: content analysis in which the scope and structure of a content area are mapped out, and interest analysis in which the motivational potential of the content elements are determined and possibly enhanced through micro-content decisions. Let's consider both processes in greater detail.

The content analysis in LED is similar to that in instructional design in that it maps out a domain, be it psychology or astronomy, or any other topic domain. But it is different from it in that decisions are not made about what the learner will see, nor about what order information will be encountered in. While a topic necessarily has boundaries, and for purely practical reasons must be constrained in the design of a particular learning environment, elements of the domain need not be 'selected' to form a constructed presentation for the learner to interact with. The learner may or may not interact with particular elements in the learning environment; they are there, but are not necessarily selected by the learner during the course of learning. Thus, content decisions must be broad ones, rather than selective ones, more encyclopedic than didactic in nature, and responsive to the learner's potential interests as eventually determined by the learner herself, rather than driven by her presumed needs as determined by the learning environment designer.

Interest analysis also impacts content decisions. Because eventual learning interactions will be mainly shaped by the learner's own decisions regarding elements of information that are competing for her attention, it is very important that interesting domain content be included in the learning environment. Later, I will also discuss making uninteresting content interesting. But for now, the focus is on content selection. The potential attractiveness of content elements is of course a relative matter, as well as a somewhat local and shifting affair. Nevertheless, some material is intuitively more interesting than other material, and this intuition needs to be taken advantage of in content decisions for the building of learning environments.

In summary then, content decisions need to be broad, and include what might be needed as opposed to what will necessarily be needed; they also need to be attuned to the interest-generating quality of the domain elements that are being considered.

Now for the interactive features of the learning environment. It was established that, since learning is voluntary, it must be made attractive. What is needed is a form of motivational design that will hook the learner's attention and capitalize on epistemic curiosity. Apart from the content of learning, the process of learning must be made attractive. This is still a largely unexplored area of design, as indeed all of LED is, but facets of the issue can be gleaned from explorations in psychology and education.

The interaction of a person with information can be made attractive through a number of means: increasing the iconic features of the environment, and even more so its enactive features if that is possible; increasing the interactivity of the situation, capitalizing on two-way communication between learner and information system; including gaming elements in the situation, such as challenges and attainment of goals in manageable steps. Other possibilities will surely emerge as this important area of LED is given more attention in the future.

In sum, given that the prime characteristic of successful learning environments is the attractiveness of their elements, LED must emphasize a breath of coverage so as to cater to varying interests, as well as a focus on continuing interest, both in content and in learning interaction. Much remains to be explored, however, in the framing of a viable and effective design process for learning environments.

One approach to LED lies in considering the cognitive processes that the learner might well engage in while exploring a learning environment. The psychological processes of learning are discussed in detail in the next chapter; here, however, we are concerned with the broad learning strategies that get activated during interaction with a learning environment. These deal with exploration of information and consolidation.

Exploration, which hinges heavily on curiosity, involves browsing within the learning environment and at times, searching for specific elements of information. Consolidation, which is task-based rather than curiosity-based, involves integrating information into a coherent and relevant structure, and that can be helped in particular by viewing a topic from different perspectives, itself a curiosity-enhancing activity.

Once again, we see the two-fold requirements for an effective learning environment: scope of information and interest of the information. The learner's curiosity must be constantly provoked by the information and then, the further information that would satisfy that curiosity must be available. So the material included in a learning environment must be extensive, and it must be made interesting. The process of LED must see to achieving these two requirements.

Some means of making it interesting were mentioned above, such as emphasizing the iconic and interactive features of information. Apart from these more outward means of manipulating the information in an environment, there are more internal information manipulation procedures that might enhance interest. These include the manipulation of information to bring about surprise in the learner, or variability in the information. In particular, information that will lead to incongruity or uncertainty in the learner's mind is apt to enhance curiosity. Contrast of perspective is useful in this respect, i.e. examining a phenomenon or event from differing perspectives. An illustrative example is a description of the American revolution from the American and the British points of view. Even emotively-neutral topics can be seen from different perspectives, for instance physics from theoretical, practical, historical, amusing, or science-fiction perspectives.

Of course, making a topic interesting is a subtle art that needs to blend topic coverage, interest-generating information, as well as the general profile of expected users. The latter is particularly tricky if we go for broad topic coverage that must have a large appeal base.

In terms of how to do it, the LED designer essentially has the task of creating an information base that will have appeal. The development of this information base will rely on a good topic coverage analysis, a good learning analysis, and a good interest analysis, all three of them applied to the selection and manipulation of information.

THE CONTEXT FOR DESIGN

I have identified two distinct instructional design processes which can be used to create learning materials. The ISD process is geared to the mastery of specified learning objectives, while the LED process fosters learning through learner engagement. What needs to be considered now is how applicable each process is for learning technology: is one process superior to the other, or should both be pursued? Furthermore, if both processes are valuable, can they not be combined into a composite instructional design process which would combine the best features of each? The context of learning needs to be examined to address these issues.

In this respect, it is not uncommon for educators to attempt to differentiate between education and training, generally to support the value of a broad education as opposed to the narrowness of training. Learning objectives are at the heart of the matter, and indeed much of the objection to the clear specification of objectives in education throughout this century centered on this idea of narrowness of outcomes (one can recall the debate that raged during the 1960s when behavioral objectives caught the fancy of educators). Since learning objectives are central to the distinction, it is not surprising that there are implications here for the applicability of instructional design processes, although as we shall soon see, we need to slightly tune the terminology to be used (the term informal learning will prove more useful than the broad term education).

As indicated earlier, the goal of ISD is to ensure the mastery of agreed upon learning objectives, whereas the goal of LED is not at all that, but rather the broadening of the person's knowledge and the deepening of one's very involvement with learning. Both ISD and LED are technologies that are tuned to achieving their own specific goals, even at the expense of the other technology's goals. Thus, ISD often achieves hard results in terms of learning, but perhaps sometimes at the expense of the learner's interest in the subject of learning. LED, on the other hand, strives for learner interest, but most probably at the expense of traditional learning results.

Both technologies have a specific orientation to learning, both lead to different results. Each technology is appropriate for its own ends. If the attainment of specific objectives is important, then the ISD approach to learning materials is the choice . On the other hand, in the realm of informal learning, LED is the process to be followed.

The interplay of these two technologies, within a social context that is predicted to evolve, will be of great interest. ISD in particular might profit greatly from the perspective emphasized by LED. Thus, while striving for effectiveness, ISD designers may start paying accrued attention to factors of interest and engagement in the design of materials. The specific forms of instruction might well change as well, with greater emphasis on high-interest technologies such as games, simulations, and intelligent tutors. On the other side of the coin, LED may take into account specific learning objectives within the overall lay-out of knowledge in its learning environments. These would however most likely be topical objectives, as opposed to a structured curriculum.

In a sense, ISD is attuned to the training side of the learning continuum, whereas LED is more oriented to the informal learning side. Education falls in the middle somewhere, and if the analysis of the future context for learning presented earlier is generally right, then we will gradually come to see much more LED than we will ISD in the area of learning design.

THE ROLE OF CURIOSITY

We as humans are learning agents. We must learn to survive and prosper, just as any animal does, and in that necessity lies the motivation which brings us to learn. This applies in a multitude of contexts which crop up in life or which we decide to participate in: prospering is at the root of learning that the neighbor's new dog should be treated with respect; it is the reason for taking an algebra class which is required for certification or for entry into a sought-after program; it is the reason for learning about stocks and bonds when one has money to invest, and so on. We learn in order to perform better in all that we do, for there is nothing new in the fact that it is those who perform the best who have the better chances of getting along and prospering. Thus, we learn because we have to!

We humans are also curious animals. We often engage in learning not because we expect some identifiable reward at the end of it, but simply because we are interested in something. We may for instance be excited by the idea of revolution in history and begin to want to know more about revolutions, which may lead us to learn about the French, American and Cuban revolutions; or we may suddenly become interested in learning about the life of Ernest Hemingway, or about that of other illustrious persons. This is curiosity-based learning, learning which follows the whims of our interests and which we engage in freely and fully.

Let's now consider some aspects of these two types of learning. Required learning is oftentimes dull (just ask our high school students what they think about it); we often engage in it not because we like it, but because we feel we have to, or because we are cajoled into it; and thus we do it grudgingly and without zest, and attempt to minimize our efforts. Hardly a happy situation! Curiosity-based learning, on the other hand, is never imposed, so we do it to our heart's content (which may be a little or a lot, whatever we wish); we do it because we like it and we like it because it is interesting. This is the essence of the learning experience!

Our task as learning technologists is to bring about the latter kind of learning, to make learning a sought-after experience, one which we are all eager to participate in.

This distinction between required learning and curiosity-based learning leads us once again to clarify some terms. In particular, we need to distinguish studying from learning. When I heard about the disposition of my neighbor's dog, I learned something but I didn't study anything. In contrast to that, I once took a course in differential equations in which I studied a lot but hardly learned anything. Learning is the cognitive processing we do, while studying is the set of activities we partake in or actively engage in with the hope of learning.

Instruction is the process of organizing a person's studying so that specific learning will occur. In effect, it is creating a situation in which specific learning objectives will be achieved by that person. Required learning is often involved in such a situation. Now, here is where confusion enters the picture: what do we call the situation in which learning is curiosity-based? The term 'self-study' hardly captures the meaning here, and the term 'self-initiated learning' is inappropriate as well, for what we are after is the studying component of the activity, not the learning component. In effect, what we are after is a term for instructionless studying. We usually use the term 'learning' in that situation, hence the confusion. So let's call it 'curiosing' for now, until a less strange term is proposed.

What we are seeing coming about is a correspondence between instructional design, required learning and training on the one hand, and between learning design and curiosing on the other. Furthermore, in line with what I have said earlier about the nature of our task as learning technologists, what is proposed here is a shift from instructional design to learning design.

NOW AND LATER

A very basic distinction between training and curiosing as two rather different learning situations would seem to lie in the timing of the learning with respect to what is learned. Training and indeed much of formal education involves learning something now for use later on. For instance, we not only train pilots to fly airplanes, but we train them also to respond appropriately to unusual circumstances, such as landing in fog, handling a sudden loss of pressure, etc. They learn now the skills they will need later on. The same is true for any job training program, from welder to neuro-surgeon. Likewise, in school, we teach the multiplication table not because there is an immediate need for it, but because the prospective need for it is very high. In all of these and like situations, the learning of the skill is artificially removed in time from the usage of the skill, and that is what can create motivational problems in learning. Of course, there is good reason for this time consideration. As passengers in an airplane, we don't want our pilot to be engaged in learning; we want her to be so well trained that she can perform her flying in any circumstances. Likewise for our neuro-surgeons, and even for our children when they are faced with a situation requiring a simple multiplication.

But yet, there remains this nasty fact that divorcing learning from usage can cut off motivation. It is thus in this chasm that learning design will have its primary opportunity to show its potential. As a general rule, it can be said that anything that tends to unify learning with usage will increase the chances of learning. Hence the tremendous value of simulation as an instructional medium.