23.7 Research issues and questions

What, then, are some of the issues that need investigation in REALs? In actuality, it is everything. At this stage, nothing has been done too much or too well. However, I consider the following topics particularly important.

23.7.1 Individual Differences

Sigurdson's and Olson's (1992) study raises a question found in other ability research. They found that the students in the top one-third of the class responded almost as well to algorithmic-practice teaching as to meaning teaching. The best students learn in spite of what we do to them. The middle one-third of students responded well to teaching with meaning, while the lowest one-third did not respond well to either of treatment. Can this effect be replicated in other studies? Can low-ability students benefit from REALs, or are REALs only for higher abilities or intelligence levels? If REALs are limited to the higher-ability students, are the methodologies inherent in REALs the reason for successful learning, or is it the ability inherent in the successful students?

23.7.2 Learner Control

Individual differences are closely related to questions of learner control. Learner control is one of the main issues related to teaching students to become intentional learners. They must develop metacognitive skills to make good control decisions. Can we specify those metacognitive skills? What can we do to help students develop those skills? For example, Arnone, Grabowski, and Rynd (1994) found that high-curious primary-age children function better given more learner control than low-curious children. Do the high-curious children possess greater intellectual curiosity or ability? How do they use their curiosity? What do they do differently in terms of learning processes?

23.7.3 Scaffolding and Support

An important part of teaching students to be intentional learners is providing them with the appropriate scaffolding and support to help them move toward more independence. The CTGV (1993) state that:

We need to carefully explore issues of how best to provide support for comprehension and learning. We suspect that there is a need to consider [interactive media] designs that function as scaffolds rather than always providing an option for full support (p. 78).

We need to identify the skills students need to perform independently to help them develop lifelong learning skills. Yes, we know in general what independent learners do, but we need to break those general skills into operational skills that teachers can work with. Brown (1989, p. 40) asserts that "one of the particularly difficult challenges for research ... is determining what should be made explicit in teaching and what should be left implicit."

Many of the research strategies described above are aimed at examining reflective processes by making them visible. What can be done to increase students' ability to reflect both on the problem and on their own problem-solving and learning processes? In part, this is related to providing scaffolding and support, for support must go beyond tools and strategies for -learning content; it must also include tools and strategies for learning the processes of learning and developing metacognitive awareness.

Research into scaffolding and support should also be directed at teachers. How can developers of REALs support their implementation and adoption in the classroom? Using REALs means radical changes, and it is difficult to make those changes without support. The CTGV is trying out electronic networks and teleconferencing in helping teachers develop the skills necessary to change and to use REALs in the classroom. What tools and strategies do we need to prepare for teachers?

23.7.4 Learning

Learning is still the raison d' etre for REALs. Williams (1992) suggests that we investigate methods that help students abstract general principles from the study of cases and problems. What can teachers do to help students abstract general principles from context specific learning? She also suggests that we measure not only content-based learning but also improvement in skills related to learning to learn. I must expand our concern from how much students learn to the inclusion of how people learned what they learned. This leads directly to assessment issues.

23.7.5 Assessment

We should assess learning in ways that are authentic, manageable, and supported by parents and administrations. Assessment strategies must examine what content people learned, the strategies employed in learning, and what students can do with the knowledge. Williams (1992) describes the following problems with current assessment strategies: First, students are often assessed on skills different from the ones they are taught; second, written tests of problem-solving performance are time consuming to administer and score; and third, assessment of problem-solving performance tends to be subjective. I made a number of suggestions related to assessment in the first half of the paper, but those options are probably only the beginning of new ways of assessing learning. Research needs to be conducted on all of those options to identify the most efficient and effective ways to apply them.

Peer assessment is also an area needing more research. Peer assessment is another way for students to assume more responsibility for their learning and for each other's learning within the learning community. Rushton, Ramsey, and Rada (1993) studied a group of 32 undergraduate students who participated in a peer assessment exercise. Contrary to expectations, the marks awarded by the peers were remarkably similar to those awarded by the tutors. Despite this, the majority of the students were extremely skeptical of peer assessment, preferring traditional teacher-based assessment. Rushton, Ramsey, and Rada's results need to be replicated, and we need to find ways to increase student assessment.

23.7.6 Technology and Research

You may have noticed something conspicuous in its absence, especially in a book on research in instructional technology-the absence of any discussion about technology in its hardware form. If you go back and look at the definition of REALs, you won't even find the word technology in the definition. Although we argued earlier that research needs to focus on methods and not media, this does not preclude research into technology to determine its potential usefulness and ways to integrate instructional methods within technology. (Part 11 of this text deals with a number of hard technologies and media-related research.) REALs are gaining more attention because technology has developed to an extent that helps teachers give more time to individuals, and because it provides tools to help learners become more independent. In the past, AV delivery systems depended on discrete audio and visual channels that transmitted separate message content. These constraints encouraged people to think about their designs as tools, either audio or video (Allen, 1994). Allen states that thinking in terms of information channels is artificial:

Humans in unmediated environments do not seem to frame their perceptions or actions in terms of information channels; rather, they appear to organize both their perception and their reasoning in terms of objects and agents of action. In spite of separate pathways for sensory information dictated by different cranial nerves for vision, olfaction, and audition, our capabilities of perception, memory, and language integrate across sensory modalities and our minds attend to avenues for exploration and action (p. 34).

Therefore, the human-machine relationship is more than discrete sensory inputs. The machines are tools that facilitate processes. So, how can we design machines to help people learn and think? Does this mean that machines need to replicate human processes or that machines support processes? Can we use machines to help make the thinking and learning processes visible and more accessible? Allen (1994) says that I need to think more about how to design media systems as livable environments, and this will require much rethinking about what it means for humans to be intimate with their media machines" (p. 34).

Besides the nature of technology and its interfaces, we need to look at specific tool uses for technology. (For a much more detailed treatment of this topic, see Chapter 25.) Lajoie (1993) describes four uses for cognitive tools in learning environments: (1) to support cognitive processes, (2) to share the cognitive load by providing support for lower-level cognitive skills, (3) to allow learners to engage in learning activities normally out of reach, and (4) to allow learners to generate and test hypotheses. These uses are related to scaffolding and metacognitive issues, and again emphasize the importance of working with technology in the context of a strategy rather than as the cause of learning.

23.7.7 The Process of Change

The implementation of REALs means radical change in most classrooms and schools. Change is always difficult, even when supported strongly by the parties involved. (Chapter 37 discusses diffusion and adoption of educational technology.) Kirsner and Bethell (1992) describe one high school teacher's attempt to change her mathematics teaching in ways that are consistent with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Although they found that a professional development school provided a relatively supportive environment, the teacher would have benefited from more consistent support as she struggled with pedagogical and content-related issues. Schools are set up to support one style of teaching. "Calls for change of any kind are seen as impositions or disturbances to be quelled as soon as possible, as unreasonable attempts to change the rules in the middle of the game" (Hodas, 1993, p. 7). In fact, Van Haneghan (1992) lists five reasons for failure or difficulties in implementing REAL strategies, and each can be dealt with through effective change management processes:

1. Curriculum developers fail to realize that their curricula involve more than materials. They must include methods and resources, too. Teachers have little time, so we must provide them with as many tools as possible to facilitate the change to a REAL classroom.
2. Curriculum developers fail to adequately train and provide support to teachers when a curriculum becomes widespread. Many teachers are interested in new techniques but need strategies and support to be successful. They must have colleagues whom they can talk to, either personally or electronically.
3. Curriculum developers fail to provide ways to integrate the program into the curricular goals of particular schools and teachers. Developers must recognize that their curriculum is not isolated but must fit within a system. Support must be provided to fit the new curriculum within the "old" school.
4. Assessment is a long-neglected issue, and developers fail to develop adequate assessment tools. Developers must not expect teachers to automatically develop new assessment strategies. Teachers need new ideas and tools for this topic, too.
5. Curriculum developers assume that curricula are developed in a top-down manner. They often dictate to teachers what they should or should not do. But teachers are more likely to adopt something from a grass roots movement than top-down fiat. They need to see the benefit and buy into the new program.

What can we do to support teachers who wish to try another style? What strategies can we provide teachers? How can we gain student, collegial, administrative, and parental support? Recall, too, that students are probably the most important group involved in this change, especially older students in high schools and colleges. These older students have learned to "play the game" with years of practice. The further they advance in education, the more successful they are at the game. Our own experiences in adopting REALs have shown significant initial resistance from students. They have to learn a new set of rules. Responsibility is risky~ and they need to know that the risk is not going to be punished. This is an area of research interest that needs much work but is often not pursued by our technologically oriented field. I need to expand our field and promote research into the instructional change process.