CBT vs Procedures

[Steve Owens <uso01 -at- EAGLE -dot- UNIDATA -dot- COM>]

> Most tutorials (paperbased or computerbased) use a scenario, or story, to
> generate material for the learner to use, while studying.  That's legitimate
> in circumstances where the learner has said, "OK, I'm putting aside my work
> for an hour, and I am going to learn how to use this software."  The trainer
> provides sample work materials, through the storyline.

> But when I am working online on my own materials, I want generic procedures
> (step by step instructions on how to do a task, where I can fill in the
> blanks with my own material.)  In general, that means I want procedures not
> training.

        I couldn't agree more that different purposes require different tools
(I've said this in the past - I think many people (if not most) lump quick
reference, procedural tutorials and computer-based training together under
the heading "online help", which leads to confused expectations of what the
online help should deliver and what it does deliver (and hence dissatisfaction).

        That said, examples can be powerful instructional tools, even
for quick reference purposes (I've surveyed programmers about online
help, and overwhelmingly they asked for a wide variety of examples for
each command).  To quote:

"Guideline 17. Teach by example, not by formalism.

People are good at inferring structure from examples, especially in
the domain of language.  Examples that cover the range of what can be
said (as in a command language) provide a better basis for learning
than does a technical notation."

 _The Human Factor_ (Rubinstein & Hersh, page 70):

Steven J. Owens
uso01 -at- unidata -dot- com