7004
Information and instruction
Geoffrey Squires, University of Edinburgh
Education is a social activity, acting upon and being acted on by other social activities; and as a consequence, educational discourse is part of a wider discourse. Words like ‘learn’, ‘structure’ and ‘programme’ are in common use in contexts outside those of formal education or its contributory disciplines. The terminology of education, unlike the terminology of physics, is not entirely the result of a systematic appraisal; it gathers some of its terms and concepts from a great untidy area of common social discourse. A continuing analysis of these terms is necessary for two reasons; to ensure that educationists have a common understanding of terms among themselves, and to enable them to relate these terms, and their discipline, to the rest of society.
An interesting example of the importance of the correct use of terms comes in a footnote to A.A. Lumsdaine’s chapter on ‘Instruments and Media of Instruction’ in Gage’s Handbook of Research on Teaching. Discussing printed materials, and in particular the text book, he writes:
Despite the venerability of the textbook as a medium of instruction, a case may be made for the position that it actually has two quite distinct functions - that of a reference source of information and that of a sequenced medium of instruction or learning. [1]
Lumsdaine contrasts ‘information’ on the one hand with ‘instruction or learning’ on the other. The ‘two quite distinct functions’ are based on the two forms of organisation commonly found in textbooks, organisation as a sequence and as a store. If a learner treats the book as a sequence he will begin at the beginning and work through to the end, in the ‘logical’ order. If he treats it as a store, he will use various retrieval devices like headings, the table of contents, the index (if any) and cross-references which enable him to move about in the material jumping forward or retracing his steps, as he wants. If a textbook has none of these devices (as some programmed texts have not) then the learner cannot use it as a store, and has to keep to the sequence if he is not to get lost. Not all textbooks can be used in both ways; some have no retrieval devices, and others have no logical sequence, being merely a collection between hard covers of various items of nonsequential information. It is this second kind of textbook that Lumsdaine seems to have in mind when he refers to a ‘reference source of information’. The implications of these words become clearer when he goes on:
The basic requirements for these two functions differ fundamentally, as, for instance, in the need for sequencing and redundancy of information. With the development of programmed self-instructional media and concomitant improvement in the information-retrieval utility of handbooks, and similar sources, it seems possible that the next decade or so may witness the decline, if not the demise, of the textbook, as now conceived, in favour of programmed instructional material on the one hand and of the well-designed reference handbook or source book on the other.[2]
Unfortunately Lumsdaine does not develop this idea any further, but it is evident that the duality of function he refers to is based not on the absence or presence of the accessing devices I described above, but on a particular connotation of the word ‘information’. It is ‘reference’ information, of the sort we go to handbooks and encyclopaedias for; isolated and unrelated lists of facts. This is an extremely damaging connotation in an educational context, and it is not surprising that Lumsdaine refers to this sort of information as a ‘utility’. Here the point I made at the beginning about the wider discourse becomes relevant. It is arguable that educationists in general and Lumsdaine in particular have taken the concept of information from contexts where it rightly has the connotation of facts (tourism, train timetables, spying, etc.) and transferred it to an educational context without enquiring if this connotation is essential to the concept of information. If it is essential, then the role of information retrieval facilities and devices in an educational context is sharply limited to a back-up utility, to provide information as a basis for problem-solving, or as a kind of fact-finding, rote-learning exercise. If however, the process of information retrieval is relatively independent of the kind of information being retrieved, then the role of these facilities and devices may be a much larger one than has previously been thought.
Although there seems to be considerable doubt as to whether information retrieval is as yet a science, it does seem possible to identify a basic set of activities which together constitute an information storage and retrieval system. These have been succinctly described by Vickery[3]. There is a store, which consists of a number of information units which can be retrieved separately. The mode of acquisition or creation of these units may vary; traditionally, the store has been a library, which acquires books. Vickery notes, however, that a textbook can be regarded as a store. Each of the units in this store is given an address, which describes its physical location (in textbook terms, a page or section number) and a description. The description is a reduction of the content of the unit to a word or a few words, much as a chapter heading describes the information contained in that chapter. The description of a unit both isolates and relates; one often finds some sort of structure in the organisation of descriptions, so that information units normally considered relevant to each other will in some way be linked by their descriptions, Thus a textbook might be divided into three or four main sections, each containing several chapters; in this case, one would expect the chapter headings to be specific to the section headings.
The other element in the process is the user. He or she brings a question or query to the system; that is, he attempts to match his query with the collection of descriptors which have been made by the librarian or information officer, or whoever devised the system. This delicate process of matching may involve the user in modifying or controlling his query so that the terms he is using correspond to terms or descriptions used in the system. This is known as ‘query formalisation’ or ‘query control’. And although this process of matching appears as a matching of terms, it can perhaps more usefully be seen as a matching of structures, expressed in terms. The organisation of descriptors may imply a certain exteriorised ‘structure’ of the field; to this, the user will bring his own interiorised structure, which becomes manifest in a use of certain terms in certain relationships. Thus it is not simply a case of understanding, say, the dictionary definition of a term which is used as a descriptor; one may need to know the relationships between that term and other terms (both in and outside the system) in order to retrieve relevant information. In a teaching-learning context, where the process may be one of acquiring the right structures, the importance of this interactive matching can hardly be overemphasised. For unless a learner can use the descriptors which are used in the system, he is forced to scan the entire material, or adopt a sequence devised by someone else. It is the very reduction of the total store to a set of descriptors, which can then be organised, which makes retrieval possible, and releases one from the burden of scanning the whole book every time one wants to look for a particular point or topic.
This brief and simplified account of the process of information retrieval has been given to show that there is a set of linked activities and elements which together make up an information storage and retrieval system. I have deliberately avoided discussing differing strategies in the organisation of information, as between, for example, pre-co-ordinate and post-co-ordinate systems, because these might obscure the main point that is being made: that nowhere in the description of the process of information retrieval is the information itself actually defined or described. Meadow makes a similar point in The Analysis of Information System[4]. Although it is possible to describe the organisation and retrieval of information, it seems that information itself is an abstraction, and cannot be described except by reference to its storage, organisation and retrieval. There is nothing in all this to suggest that information necessarily connotes facts ‘of the height of Everest’ or ‘Nelson’s chief victories’ sort. Definitions of information (and of facts) tend to be circular and unsatisfactory.
The way out of this difficulty is not to try to get outside the circle, but to go round it, so to speak; that is, to concentrate on the process of information retrieval, and the devices which facilitate it. If then it is conceded that information is more usefully seen as a process, rather than an entity or a commodity, the question arises: can it be distinguished from and related to other instructional processes? This problem has been discussed at some length in two articles in Education for Information Science, edited by Heilprin, Markuson and Goodman. One important point made there is that the retrieval of information is not necessarily a ‘one-off’ affair, but can be a developmental process. Referring to information storage and retrieval (ISR) and education (E), the authors say:
The purpose of both the ISR and the E question is not only to locate information but to modify the search prescription. In neither case need there by a high priority on the searcher’s retaining located information, although it may be useful for some purposes. Similarly, in research, solving one problem usually redirects the search into a modification of the problem as originally expressed. Far from being a merely static starting point of entry to a search, a search prescription evolves dynamically as the search proceeds.[5]
This emphasis on a developing search provides a useful way of looking at the retrieval process in a teaching-learning content. It is a process characterised on the one hand by a search pattern, over which the learner has a good deal of control, and on the other hand the existence of accessing devices which facilitate this search. The materials being used in the search may vary from a single text book (which has been used here to give the simplest instance) to a small collection of materials, such as might be found in a learning resources centre, or a large university or national library. The materials may include non-print information, and it could be useful to consider people - teachers and tutors - as part of the information store. This ‘search’ mode can be distinguished from two other modes of interaction between learner and resources, namely a presentation mode, such as a radio or television broadcast, where information is presented to the learner in a predetermined sequence, and an interactive mode, such as a group discussion, where control of sequencing and the scope of discussion depends on the interaction of the group. These modes cannot be taken as absolute - there is an element of the others in each one - but from the point of view of how we describe the presentation mode - sequencing, pacing, step, response, etc. - do not fit the search mode, and sometimes confuse the issue. The advantage of analysing this search mode, which is after all nothing new in education, using the terms and concepts developed in the formal study of information retrieval is that we can now describe this process in terms which have already been carefully formulated and developed in another discipline, without being side-tracked into a view of information as facts. In other words, once we have conceptualised information as a process, and not a thing, the way lies open to a systematic examination of the devices in materials which aid this process, using retrieval terms like matching, scanning and switching which belong naturally to the process. In practical terms, this means paying much more attention to accessing devices in text materials, and to problems of retrieval at resource centre level, especially in relation to independent study. The decision when to provide the learner with direct access to materials is a teaching one; the operation of the accessing devices is an information problem, best dealt with in information terms.
The use of ‘information’ to connote fact is not confined to the example I quoted at the beginning. In general, there seems a tendency to regard information as an entity or commodity, which is stored, disseminated and otherwise moved around. In a commercial or research context, this emphasis may be quite valuable, as it gets away from the historically important emphasis on the storage and preservation of information. The burning of the library at Alexandria was a disaster, and this even seems to have scorched the soul of many a librarian, making him keener on preserving than on serving. But the present emphasis on the movement of information, and bringing it to the user, which is a useful corrective, also has some dangers for education; in particular that we will have to spend an increasing amount of time and money on disseminating and processing information that is not really necessary. In a teaching-learning context, such an emphasis might swamp the learner just as the traditional one starves him; both have in common a quantitative view of information. A great emphasis on the process of retrieval, and the delicate problems of matching the information in system with the learner’s needs might help to regulate the ever-increasing flow to a volume which the learner could cope with.
Discussion
The discussion started and remained for some time with a consideration of the effect of a systems approach on the teacher. We explored tensions between the classroom teacher on the one hand and the programme director on the other. We agreed that open-circuit television programmes seemed likely to give way to, for example, EVR cassettes, in view of the rigidity of the former and the teacher control ability of the latter. Indeed, student access to mediated instruction - i.e. control by the individual learner rather than the group teacher - was bound to increase, both as a result of availability, accessibility and a more thorough attention to the needs of individual learner.
Geoffrey Squires described the research at Brunel University on strategies of reading. It is attempting to discover how readers differ in their use of resources and how they succeed in drawing from different kinds of material that which they need at that point in their learning. As systems approaches develop it seems likely that the simpler task will be in mediated forms thus giving the teacher more time to deal with more complex individual or group problems.
A thorough-going systems approach for a University course in Biology was described. The course designers compiled material in different categories:- (a) material for individual study was available in a variety of media; (b) large groups were used for films or lectures and (c) the tutors were used to help at critical points either individuals or tutorial groups.
The textbook seemed likely to survive both as sequence and store but probably would attempt to cover less ground. We began to explore the fertile idea that some learning and perhaps the most fruitful, is in a search mode. Networks of books, documents and mediated programmes could be collected and a retrieval guide would enable the learner to use this network but not force him to use any more than he needed or in any particular order. The “logical” order of the textbook writer may not be the best order for the learner; an example was given of an American electronics course where the undergraduates were allowed to start the course from their own point of entry. Teachers in adult education will hardly be surprised to hear that they chose to start from their transistor sets rather than with an abstract theory. The development of insight into the search-mode of learning will undoubtedly develop retrieval theory and practice and this is bound to affect all teaching and learning situations and the material for them.
[1]Lumsdaine, A.A. in Gage, N.L. (ed), Handbook of research on teaching, Chicago, 1963; pp. 585-586
[2] ibi