[quoting Hooper, 19 May 99] My question concerns how to access useful and effective scaffolds when the context is generated by the user. How can the system provide more than generic support on how to access and use the resources and tools that are needed to resolve the problem?
Simon hits on an important point--to what extent (and how) can we scaffold the learning of things that are not (indeed cannot) be known in enabling contexts that are uniquely determined by an individual--we do not know, in advance, what they might want to learn or know, how it will relate to the context/need that establishes their learning need, etc.--what realistically can be done.
First, a point of clarification, semantic at one level but principled as well. Externally imposing an enabling context does not necessarily mean that an explicit behavioral learning objective (defined as containing specified conditions, actions/performance, and performance criteria) is necessarily imposed. Just that the situation through which someone engages the environment and its associated learning expectations are externally established. These expectations might be very explicit and performance oriented (per behavioral objectives) or they might be much more integrative and top-level goals, objectives or statements. That the enabling context is externally imposed simply establishes that the goal and context are imposed rather than determined by the individual.
Per above, then, I see externally imposed/induced contexts as being easier to anticipate/provide scaffolding or just-in-time support that contexts and learning needs that are entirely defined by the individual. If anything, it becomes increasingly possible to establish the knowledge, skills, and key complexity/decision points when circumstances are well-known (we treat this in our scaffolding section). As such, its entirely conceivable--even likely in many cases--that JLSs will utilize externally imposed enabling contexts when the goals/expectations of the system are clearly established and the problem space is provided (e.g., response-sensitive help in word processing software applications). For OLEs, and maybe JLSs, the more externally prescribed the context and performance expectations, the more explicit the scaffolding and support can be; the less known the situation and expectations, the more generic the support becomes.
Scaffolding can be provided for any enabling context, but the specificity varies. Conceptual scaffolding tends to be helpful for externally-imposed or -induced enabling contexts but pretty hard to do when the concepts to be studied can't be/aren't known at the time you develop the learning environment. Metacognitive scaffolding tends to be somewhat more flexible in supporting learning where the enabling context is not known in advance. It might reminder learners to recall and reflect on their goal(s), suggest consideration of problem solving alternatives, prompt the individual to identify a familiar event/concept based on his/her own experiences, etc. Procedural scaffolding can also be used to support system feature use in an OLE/JLS since it has to do with helping the learner optimize the capabilities of a given environment (independent of the specific content under study). Wizards are common design technologies now that can scaffold feature utilization. Strategic scaffolding might support analysis, planning, strategy, and tactical decisions, looking to assist learners in identifying and selecting needed information, evaluating available resources, and relating new to existing knowledge and experience.
But, to reinforce Simon's question and the previous comments, make no mistake about it: scaffolding of necessity becomes progressively less explicit and domain referenced as the enabling context becomes increasingly open and learner-defined. Whereas in externally imposed/induced, we can support cognitive processes and tactics linked to known domains/problems under study, in internally defined enabling contexts we can only support cognitive cognitive processes and tactics. The dilemma, of course, is that it is precisely this type of learning (informal education, informal learning) that most needs improved tools and scaffolds to support individually defined, often spontaneous learning needs. This is where the risks are greatest, but so too are the payoffs.