Discussion 11 - Instructional Technology Forum - University of Georgia

ITForum Paper #11:
A Discussion of Stephen M. Alessi's
Seeking Common Ground: Our Conflicting
Viewpoints about Learning and Technology
Edited by
Gene L. Wilkinson
The ITForum discussion reported here took place between February 23 and March 18, 1996, and is
presented virtually verbatim as it occurred. Minor editing was done for stylistic and grammatical
consistency and to improve the flow of the discussion. Messages which consist primarily of
"cheering" (voting for or against contributors) have been eliminated while those which contribute to the
discussion of the issues raised have been kept. In addition, some minor rewording of some posts was
done to clarify the intent of messages; but, efforts have been made to preserve the feel of a give-and-take
discussion. Any value of this discussion is due to the efforts and insights of the contributors--any failures
can be blamed on the editor.
The buttons that appear below will be found at the bottom of each page of the discussion. The first
button will take you back to the previous page (in this case, to the beginning of paper #11). The middle
button will take you to the ITForum home page. The last button takes you forward into the discussion as
it progressed on-line. If you wish to proceed directly to a specific posting, you may consult the index.

23 Feb 96
Charles Padgett
I realize that the official time of discussion isn't until Monday, but this article is the sort of thing that
leaves my mouth hanging open, my mind saying, "Well, of course! Why hasn't this already been said a
million times?" Wow. So, if'n you don't mind, I'd like to comment on a few things in the article.
[quoting Alessi's paper] In five to ten years we will have small, portable, and inexpensive (by
which I mean a few hundred dollars) hand-held computers, much like a Newton or personal
digital assistant, which will have built in scanning and voice synthesis and be able to read. ...
Once it becomes cheaper to buy a reading machine than to teach a child to read, there will be
great societal pressure to save the money.
As someone who works pretty regularly with reading machines (I'm a techie person at UGA's Office of
Disability Services, and most of our machines are for blind/visually impaired folks), I was grabbed by
this vision. I'm willing to buy the five to ten years figure. Currently, there are a few obstacles, of course.
Equipment that converts printed text to speech is a little slow (imagine photocopying a book, the
busywork of flipping pages and pressing it against the glass, then add the computing time)--but the
bigger obstacle, I think, is that being read to is slow. Even a just-under-average reader will zoom her
eyes over the page faster than she could be spoken to (the machines can speak quickly, but then
understanding gets tricky). Maybe not such a big problem for beginning readers, who will need to work
out words and sentences consciously, but pretty inconvenient. If/when the on-the-fly scanners described
in the article are available, the actual scanning will be easier--but we'll still be sitting around, waiting for
the machine to finish talking to us. Let nothing stand in the way of progress, though--this suggests to me
that rather than avoiding the machine-reading, our writing style will change. Of course, this is already
going on--e-mails and usenet posts, etc., are usually very different from our normal view of printed text,
down to the emoticons to tell us when something is a joke (which, personally, I've gotten so used to, that
it's hard for me to pick up on irony in e-text, that would have me laughing aloud in a book). Combine
this with the changes in writing suggested below.
What's next? In ten or 15 years that same cheap, hand-held computer will be able to take dictation
and write. If so, what are the implications for learning to write? Everyone will be able to write,
from the first draft through multiple revisions, by giving dictation and aural directions to handheld
secretaries.
After reading this, the first thing that came to mind was, why is he inserting writing in here at all? It
seems that the natural flow of the technology is out of writing, towards orality. "Writing" becomes no
more than an algorithmic expression to compress speech (and when bandwidth ceases to be a problem,
perhaps the compression scheme ceases to exist).

I have to ask, If these alternatives come to exist, would it matter how cheap and easy educational
technologies made literacy? Or do you see promotion of literacy as part of the project--and if so, how on
earth do you convince people to invest in it, just because it is cheap and easy? I'm not saying that it isn't
a good goal--I wouldn't be studying the field if I thought it wasn't worthwhile. But, how? Or would the
ease of information flow created by mass media, especially advertisement-style information flow, make
it possible to portray literacy as attractive (which I guess is more compelling than "important")?
The explosive growth of resources on the Internet, especially via the World Wide Web, brings
this controversy to the fore. On the one hand is the reasonable point of view that for people to go
to the considerable effort to create new knowledge, they should get something for it. On the other
hand is the equally reasonable point of view that nobody really owns knowledge and society will
be better off if we all share it.
You know, I own a car. Worked hard for the repairs that kept it running. If there were some law saying
that just anyone had "fair use" of it, and could drive it anytime they wanted to, I think that would bother
me. But intellectual "property" isn't a car. It's able to be copied, adapted, skewed completely. I'm a little
extremist about this, at least in theory. I like the idea of completely free information.
We do run a risk if we go too far. If there is no benefit to creating or discovering knowledge,
fewer people will do it. ... Although I would like to see a change in the copyright and patent laws,
and feel we should all promote the creation of free electronic journals, shareware, and databases,
we must also do something to ensure people some return for their intellectual efforts, if they want
it. What might that be?
Fame? I'm actually kinda serious in saying that. As global communications combined with advertisingculture
mentality take over, having a name and reputation that stand out would be pretty important, I
think. Reputation could easily lead to profit, as potential employers vie for your services. I just am not
sure that solutions based on our current economy will be that relevant 10+ years from now. Obviously,
my idea doesn't have much application to current issues in educational technology--who's going to
choose hoping someone will notice they've written something, when there's a book publisher out there
offering royalties?
Perhaps people just don't believe in using a computer with a group of students.
As you mention below, we don't know how. My main interest in this field is in simulations and
microworlds, but most all of my experience with them has been in games marketed towards single users.
One of my projects for this quarter's classes is designing a prototype simulation, and personally I'd love
to make it collaborative--but that's simply not going to happen, since all I know is single human/
computer interaction.
This controversy is perhaps the one most suggestive of a research agenda. For example,
cooperation versus competition are clearly critical variables in any theory of motivation. Research
on motivation should be addressing how to use and accommodate both. ... And lastly, applying

either competitive or cooperative learning principles in real classrooms raises numerous logistical
problems such as space, networking, and fairness in grading.
I wonder how much knowledge in collaboration we could draw from commercial (non educational)
materials? I ask, because a lot that I've learned about gaming is mapped onto my previous learning from
playing the things--and with the growing trend towards networked games, perhaps the people who are in
it for profit could solve some of our problems for us?
Charles Padgett
University of Georgia
E-mail: cpadgett@moe.coe.uga.edu

24 Feb 96
Michael Spector
Thank you, Steve Alessi, for reminding us that we, as instructional technologists and educational
researchers, do have important things to tend to, and, either in spite of or on account of our many and
healthy differences, we should try to help build a better future. I especially liked your remarks about the
significance of diversity. Your essay reminded me of T.S. Elliot, who said that "the good man is the
builder, if he builds what is good." And I seem to recall something about "the wisdom we have lost in
knowledge" and the "knowledge we have lost in information" (Choruses From the Rock).
So, you have set me to wondering about the "goodness" of some of the things that happen as a result of
instructional technology. I wonder, for example, what the long term effects will be on a person's
linguistic abilities should that person happen to acquire important language skills via a keyboard as
opposed to a writing tablet (at ages five to seven, for example) or via a digital assistant with voice
recognition and speech generation, as suggested in your scenario. The latter places the linguistic
processing capabilities in the aural domain, whereas the former retains the written aspects but shifts their
acquisition from a one-handed process to a two-handed process, which should have implications for the
localization and perhaps processing of linguistic capabilities in the brain. Are these the kinds of
questions that you are suggesting are important areas of research?
And, if so, I am curious to learn what you think about Julius Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
Mike Spector
E-mail: mike@ifi.uib.no

26 Feb 96
Johan Viljoen
[referring to Alessi's paper] Very interesting, very true, very good!
BUT...
Allow my raising an issue which thus far has not been mentioned often, if at all: The uneducated or semieducated
masses in Third World and so-called Developing countries, like my own (South Africa), i.e.,
probably the largest part of humanity.
For the life of me, I cannot see such people running around with hand-held communication machines in
5-20 years' time, perhaps not even in 30. It is fine to speculate about the effects of technological change
"on the world," if we conveniently regard "the world" as consisting of human beings whose basic
survival needs (food, shelter, clothing, physical safety) have long since been satisfied. Unfortunately we
are living in a fool's paradise if we reason like that.
South Africa is supposed to be the most technologically-advanced country on this continent, but even so
a majority of South Africans have probably never even seen a computer. E-mail and the Net are
concepts known to perhaps 10 per cent (if that many) of our population of 40 million. In some African
countries, I believe, these technologies do not even exist. In Europe and the USA you have been using
satellite technology in education for years--here it has been introduced so recently that most higher
education institutions do not even have it yet (except for the odd Electrical Engineering department).
I have many first-year tertiary (i.e., post-school) students in my classes who meet computers for the first
time when they enroll with us. There are millions of people who don't have the foggiest idea of how to
use automatic teller machines.
And I can continue in that vein.
"Educating the masses" may not be a priority in the USA or Germany or Canada or Australia any more,
but it is THE most important issue in education in scores of countries like mine. Therefore the points
made by Steve Alessi raise some crucial questions for me:
(1) Should we continue our efforts in South Africa (and similar countries) to teach literacy? (Is literacy
really necessary for survival?)
(2) If we do, what would be the implications regarding the most sensible use of IT in a country where

elatively few people are familiar with it, either as producers or as consumers?
(3) If we don't teach conventional literacy, how should we go about "educating the masses" who have no
access to relevant electronic technology (and probably won't have for years to come)?
(4) Should we bother about "educating the masses" at all??
Isn't communication technology simply creating a new form of global apartheid, with us "electronically
literates" becoming the privileged elite? (A question that has been asked frequently, but not yet
answered satisfactorily.)
Fascinating and exciting as the developing technologies and their applications are to me, I am brought
down to earth with a solid thud every morning when I walk into my computerless classroom and see my
computerless students looking at me with computerless eyes. In a country where there are only a handful
of formally trained CBI/CBT/CAE/CAI developers one is considered by many people to be a computer
genius if one owns a fairly decent computer and has read a few articles in SA Computer Buyer
magazine!
I think Steve Alessi's fears might even be more well-founded than he thought them to be, if one
considers the billions of left-behinds and about-to-be-left-behinds in the world. Instead of being broken
down, our cushy hi-tech ivory towers are seemingly becoming more solid than ever.
If I consider the sophistication of some of the contributions to ITForum, I feel like a Left-behind myself!
Johan Viljoen
Department of Language Dynamics
Technikon Pretoria
E-mail: jviljoen@TCM.ee.techpta.ac.za

26 Feb 96
Steve Tripp
I'm not an expert, but I play one on TV, so I will comment on some of the language-related issues raised
by SOUTH AFRICA.
[quoting Alessi's paper] In five to ten years we will have small, portable, and inexpensive (by
which I mean a few hundred dollars) hand-held computers, much like a Newton or personal
digital assistant, which will have built in scanning and voice synthesis and be able to read. Wave
one in front of a newspaper or magazine and it will read the pages aloud for you. Flip the pages of
a textbook and it will read you the book. If this comes to pass, or perhaps I should say when this
comes to pass because even if it is not in five or ten years, it is inevitable, what are the
implications for teaching children to read?
This technology is more or less available now. The weakest link is the scanning of various fonts. Voice
synthesis is now available for your WWW Browser . The problem of weird intonation is within the
capability of articulatory phonetics to solve soon. However the problem is not this simple. In many parts
of the world, spoken language and written language differ considerably. I'm thinking of Arabic, Greek,
and Swiss German. Reading is not confined to texts. We read labels, roadsigns, schedules, maps, and
posters. I doubt that handheld devices will be able to deal with these for a long time. Listening has some
advantages over reading. You can listen while you are doing other things, but you cannot read easily
while composing text as I am doing now. Many of you may be subscribed to TechBabble as I am, and I
find that it is useful to play the news in the background while I'm doing other things. But if something is
important or technical I always print it out, so I can digest it carefully.
What's next? In ten or 15 years that same cheap, hand-held computer will be able to take dictation
and write. If so, what are the implications for learning to write?
According to my sources, this is overly optimistic. People have been predicting this for decades and we
are hardly any closer to that goal. Speech recognition needs to deal with several parameters: Voice
differences, vocabulary, and speed. All of these are extraordinarily difficult problems. Let me illustrate.
When I am speaking, you can infer numerous things besides the content of my speech: (1) I am an
American. (2) I have a vaguely eastern accent, with some other mixtures. (3) My age. (4) My sex. (5)
Maybe whether I'm gay or not. (6) Whether I am tired. (7) Whether I am sincere. (8) Whether I am in a
hurry. All of this is noise to the computer trying to determine what I am saying. There is some variety in
the way we speak. Many Americans say "the problem is, is that..." I say "the problem is that..." Many
Americans say "All's you have to do..." Many people pronounce something "sump'n." There is a general
rule in English that you can omit the second of three consecutive consonants (Ol'man, coas'guard, two
mon's, fis'fight). NPR is pronounced MPR. To put it mildly, this is a big problem. The computer will

need to be as smart as you and I (or a five-year old). Linguists working with computers are pessimistic
that this problem can be solved in the near future.
I should also point out that some languages rely on the written form more than English. Japanese, for
example, creates new words by exploiting the two ways of pronouncing characters (on-yomi and kunyomi).
It is the single WRITTEN form which is the link between the two entirely different spoken
forms. Not knowing the written language is unthinkable to people with languages like this.
Next? In 15 to 20 years those increasingly small and inexpensive computers will also translate
between many of the world's languages.
Have you tried any of the translation software? I have tried Japanese-English translation software. To
say it is unreliable is to be kind. Essentially, the problem of translation is similar to the problem of voice
recognition. It requires a machine that is virtually as smart as a human. If you constrain the domain of
discourse and don't require too much anaphoric reference you can get some reliability. But free
continuous text? That's a long way off. (Meaning nobody yet understands how it can be done.)
Steve Alessi and Mike Spector raise the issue of the effects of reading and writing vs. listening and
speaking (and learning to write with two hands as opposed to one). Please note that this contradicts
Clark's "mere vehicles" hypothesis. (Which doesn't bother me.)
Steven Tripp, Professor
Center for Language Research
University of Aizu
Tsuruga, Ikki-machi
Aizu-Wakamatsu City
965-80, Japan
Phone: +81-242-37-2584
Fax: +81-242-37-2599
E-mail: tripp@u-aizu.ac.jp

26 Feb 96
T. Kent Thomas
JUST-IN-TIME, JUST ENOUGH, JUST BARELY...
Steve's paper was very thought provoking, and prompted me to reevaluate some of my beliefs and the
strength with which they are held. Perhaps the biggest single "diversity issue" that stands out in my mind
is the differing viewpoints between education and training. Picture also where today's graduate will be
working within five to ten years.
Though the service industry is rapidly growing in the United States, let's use a good "capitalistic"
example that still is relevant and directly applies to the emerging nations of the Pacific Rim, for
example, manufacturing and marketing of today's PCs (or tomorrow's "intelligent" PDAs or Newtons):
Just-in-time manufacturing is becoming the norm. Parts are delivered just when needed, production runs
on the production lines are very short, as models rapidly change due to competition, technology, and
innovation. Product life-cycles, from conception through obsolescence, are measured in months, not
years. Products are highly customizable, using technologies such as expandable busses, etc. Assembly
jobs are more and more focused on configuring the "production line or system" for these short, custom
production runs, and managing the customization efforts--not performing the same repetitive actions on
the same products for indeterminate periods of time.
Marketing and distribution are changing also. Just-in-time distribution is the norm, as companies try to
avoid overstocking products that will depreciate 25-50% in a matter of months--if not become totally
obsolete. Fewer products are displayed or warehoused, and custom-ordering (with rapid delivery) is
becoming the norm, not the exception. Again, there's short product life-cycles with new products
constantly being introduced. Sales jobs are primarily consultative in nature, matching the customer's
needs with the features and benefits of this dynamic product line, and selecting the options that
customize the product to the unique customer requirements--not demonstrating the same old products to
all prospective customers. The customer service (and value added, and thereby profit margins) comes
from custom solutions rather than commodity products that compete primarily based upon price.
Now picture the company's perspective. In industry, "time is money." Typically the company will pay
two or three times for any learning that occurs: (1) for developing or purchasing the materials,
equipment, and classrooms necessary and providing the learning opportunity; (2) the learner's salary
while they're away from the job; and (3) the corresponding loss of productivity while the learning was
taking place. In industry, relevant knowledge is very valuable, yet very volatile. Today's knowledge will
quickly be out-dated, totally obsolete, or irrelevant. Learning is a constant, and a constant expense that
must be cost-controlled as does every other facet of the organization. Adaptability and rapid response

can be as critical as research and development. Yet, you can quantify the results of a new product's sales,
or a new assembly line's production. How do you quantify the value of learning, or providing learning
opportunities? How do you balance this "investment in the future" (which is the best possible
interpretation of the expense of training) which is impossible to quantify, with other business concerns
such as investing in new production equipment?
There's not enough money to try two alternative approaches just to see which one works best. Training is
paid for by profit, and there's never enough (at least if there's stockholders involved). There's no way to
repeatedly use "control groups" to objectively evaluate the impact of a specific training event, since the
need is critical and the cost of non-performance is unacceptable (at least in many cases). "Get it out, get
it to everyone, and get on to the next challenge!" We can't afford to keep evaluating and refining a
design--instead our goal is to revise it only once (and then, hopefully, minor) before shipping. A major
revision is a major cost, and is perceived as a major mistake. Each revision is just more profit "down the
drain."
Consider IBM, as one example or case study. Not very many years ago (late 1980-1992), IBM prided
itself that the company invested more in employee training, per year, per capita, than most public school
systems did per student. How many of these trained people no longer work for IBM? How much profit
did IBM invest in them, before it divested itself of them? How many of them now work for the
competition? Of those who still work for them, how much of that training that was provided only a few
years ago is now obsolete? Where is IBM in relation to the market today? We can't directly relate their
position in the marketplace to their previous or current training commitment, but we can certainly ask
"What was the total return on IBM's training investment?"
To those of us providing training in industry, the crisis is already here (T.H. Bell documented it years
ago). We look to technology to help us address it today. We need technologies such as just-in-time
training, EPSSs, CBT, distance learning, etc. We look toward as scientific a method of predicting
success as possible. We need to know what instructional strategy or technique works reliably in a given
set of circumstances, not necessarily the optimum solution. We need to choose the most cost-effective
solution from among alternative solutions, most all the time. We need reliable effectiveness, efficiency,
and predictable risk. We need results at the lowest possible cost. Hopefully ITForum can also serve the
diversity of practitioners in industry, not just educators or academia.
T. Kent Thomas
Director, Creative Services
Clear With Computers (CWC)
E-mail: kentt@prairie.lakes.com

26 Feb 96
Jeff Oliver
As one of those who was fortunate to be at the conference to hear Steve Alessi's Dean Lecture, I must
say it was most thought-provoking. Here are a couple of relatively minor comments about the opening
section, which was largely a piece of enjoyable crystal-ball gazing, plus some thoughts about the nature
of courseware. If you like your discussion academic and esoteric, read no further.
Coincidentally only a few days after the conference, I was talking to a teacher who specializes in
supporting the learning of deaf and hearing-impaired children and young adults. These children already
suffer from disadvantages when it comes to learning to read and speak. While it may be possible to
create an interface where members of that group can receive an output from a new electronic reading
device (NERD?), perhaps in signs, being able to use a speech input device may always be beyond them.
In Steve's future becomes reality, some disadvantaged groups may find themselves even more excluded.
My second point concerns the notion of a universal translator. Translating language is difficult enough,
but that's not the whole story. Having had experience of translating courseware between languages,
including American into English, it is really meaning that needs to be translated and that is a far trickier
proposition. (See my paper to the ADCIS conference 1989, International Courseware--The Problems
and Pitfalls). In any case, Steve's assertion that "most people do not learn a foreign language as it is" is
very sweeping. Make that "many people who have English as their mother tongue do not learn a foreign
language." The story is certainly different in mainland Europe, where it seems that most people have
some proficiency in more than one language.
Now to cooperative/collaborative learning. Even where courseware is designed for individual use,
schools often put two or more students in front of each computer due to the limited numbers of
machines. I can see great merit in more research into how to exploit that for improvements in learning.
This is fine for schools. For my business customers, who are using CBT to offer employees open
learning opportunities at the work-place, this is less likely to be of use. The main topics are work-related
procedures and operations, with on rare occasions where students are in neat groups. The prime goal is
the maximum learning in the minimum time. It's difficult to see a place for anything but individualized
training. This is a conservative view, but businesses are like that.
Finally, Plenty-of-Time versus Just-in-Time learning. Just-in-Time training and its illegitimate sibling
EPSS are fine when (1) learners don't need much practice to be proficient and (2) only small numbers of
learning points have to be acquired to complete the task. Airline pilots and surgeons are not high on my
priority list for these types of learning. I have a pragmatic approach here. With most types of teaching
we do not expect students to learn everything that is in the lessons (or all post-tests would require 100%
to pass). In particular, most job-related training offers an opportunity to learn, but we must expect

trainees to return to the job incompletely trained. Usually a colleague or supervisor fills in the gaps.
That's what really happens, and it has many advantages. Just-in-Time learning bypasses the settling-in
and learning-completion phases which are arguably essential. Plenty-of-Time Incomplete Learning is a
more accurate description, with people-based performance support the norm.
I offer no apologies for bringing this down to earth and into the workplace.
Jeff Oliver
Castle Hedingham
England
E-mail: 100024, 2461@compuserve.com

26 Feb 96
Stanley Supinski
Thanks to Steve Alessi for a thought-provoking paper; we often become bogged down with our daily
routines and immediate tasks, and don't stop to think about the long term.
Regarding his comments on individualism versus collectivism, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to
conduct research and develop software that addresses how learners can interact with the support of
technology. I recently conducted such a study (my dissertation) which structured the learning
environment with individual/computer interaction, followed by human/human interaction. The results
clearly suggested that while there are benefits to individualization, learner motivation and achievement
gains may improve most when the amount of promotive time, or the time humans interact, increases.
This is perhaps best stated by John Underwood, who said that it may very well turn out that the biggest
advantage to computer assisted instruction is a side effect--the dialog that occurs in front of the screen
rather than on it.
Although Steve condones such research, his predictions about the future may prevent it from taking
place on a larger scale. The reason increased human/human interaction is perhaps more beneficial is that
the level of interactivity (whatever this term means) that can be achieved between human and machine is
still nowhere near the level that can be achieved by two humans. But if technological advances move us
closer to achieving such levels of interaction, then we may, unfortunately, see a decrease in human to
human cooperation and learning.
Major Stan Supinski
US Air Force Academy/DFF
E-mail: supinskisb%dff%usafa@dfmail2.usafa.af.mil

27 Feb 96.a
Steve Alessi
Here are some thoughts based on the comments that have come in so far. I'll go by order of postings.
Charles Padgett [23 Feb 96] asks why this hasn't been said a million times before? Well of course it has
been said. I don't know how many times. Take a look at Sven Birkert's The Gutenberg Elegies: The
Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. But it seems like nobody is listening. (I had a history teacher
who said, "Why does history repeat itself? Because nobody listens the first time.")
Charles points out that reading is slow, implying that it is TOO slow for most readers. But have you
noticed the increasing number of audio taped books in bookstores? It may bother some people, but many
people prefer listening. Steve Tripp [26 Feb 96] pointed out that you can listen while doing other things.
Charles asks why I included predictions about writing at all and suggests that there might be a natural
evolution towards more aural communication. I believe that is very true, and wouldn't it be ironic? We
started out with oral transmission of knowledge and culture, the printing press changed us to written
transmission, and newer technology may well return us to an oral culture. Is that all bad?
Anthropologists point out that the oral cultures of the past had great respect for the elderly, for they
possessed the cultures knowledge to the greatest degree. Our loss of oral knowledge transmission may
be in part responsible for the perceived uselessness of the elderly (by young and old alike). Even literacy
has had some negative consequences.
Charles asks if we will, or should, continue to invest in literacy, no matter how cheap and easy? That is a
tough one. Let me brainstorm about some differences between oral communication versus written
communication. Oral communication is more controlled by one party, the speaker. Written
communication is more fair, the writer can write at any pace he/she desires and the reader can read at a
pace he/she desires. The writer can put lots more time and thought into each sentence, as can the reader.
These make me believe that written communication is sometimes better. But others will probably say
that with a computer as the intermediary between speaker and listener, these differences will also
disappear. Like most people who can read, I cling to the belief that reading is good and that we should
preserve it. But when asked WHY it is good, I suspect I'm on as shaky ground as most religions.
In favor of freedom of information, Charles suggests that fame will be payment enough. No way. The
World Wide Web already has over 100,000 sites. It won't be long before we are so flooded with sites
and information that nobody will be famous on the Web. It's easy to become famous at the START of
something when you are one of the first people doing it. But once everyone is on the Web with their
books, pictures, music, and so on, it will be as hard to become famous on the Web as it is in Hollywood.

The quest for fame will not pay the bills.
Michael Spector [24 Feb 96] asks what I think will be the long term effects of aural rather than written
communication, much the same issue raised by Charles Padgett. Let me follow up on that a bit. Many
psychologists associate reading and writing with thinking, at least a different level of thinking, more
than they do speaking and listening. I believe that is largely because reading and writing were (until
recently) based upon a permanent record. Because text is permanent visual information, we can carefully
inspect it, reread it, process it, and modify it without time constraints. Aural information, historically,
was ephemeral, occurring in time, and therefore harder to inspect, process, and modify. We do so in
conversations, but we often do so poorly because of the limitations of attention, short term memory,
sensory overload, etc. This century's invention of recording technology (records, tape recorders, CD's,
and now computers) I believe has changed that. Auditory information is now a permanent record too,
even if not visual. Recorded auditory information can be repeatedly inspected and processed without
time constraints. Now, with computer technology, it is also becoming easier to modify recorded auditory
information. So, the key distinction between visual and auditory information, its permanence, is being
eliminated by information technology. We will move into a new era in which people can engage in the
same activities with recorded auditory information as readers and writers used to do with the written
word. Auditory information is coming up to par with visual information. Now, written information had
this "permanence" advantage (historically) despite aural communication being much more natural to
people. By natural, I mean that aural communication has been around so long that evolution has "wired"
it into our brains. Children learn language naturally. Written communication is so new to humans that it
has not become wired into our brains. We must be taught to read and write and it's much harder than
learning to speak and listen. But the permanence of visual information outweighed the built-in wiring.
Now, with the advantage of permanence disappearing, I think the natural human proclivity to aural
communication will begin to dominate. Mike asks what research I think is important in this regard?
Well, there is basic research and applied research. I suspect basic psychology researchers will be
interested in the effects on cognition of humanity moving (or returning) to predominantly aural
communication for the transmission of knowledge and culture. As an applied researcher, I am more
interested in how to overcome the inherent differences between the written and the aural. How can we
make recorded auditory information more easily inspectable and modifiable? How can we overcome any
differential impact on our spatial versus linguistic versus quantitative abilities? I believe we can
overcome such differences by designing the right editing and processing tools.
I am not quite sure how Mike thinks Julius Jaynes' thesis fits in here. Perhaps you can clarify that, Mike.
Since I believe in evolution I have no doubt that consciousness did take some time to develop in
humans. But I must admit to skepticism of Jaynes' contention that it developed so LATE, comparatively
speaking, in human history. Since his thesis is largely based upon the analysis of ancient texts, I can't
help thinking that there is some confounding between the literary style of those texts and the level of
human cognition at the time which was expressed in them.
Thinking about that forces me onto a tangent. This is an issue I considered discussing in the paper but
cut for the same of brevity. Technology is a two edged sword. Medicine helps us leave healthier longer
lives. But there is evidence that it is having a bad evolutionary effect, namely, our NATURAL resistance

to disease is decreasing. Eyeglasses help many of us lead happier and more productive lives. But they
have destroyed the evolutionary advantage of good eyesight and, many biologists believe, are resulting
in an evolutionary slide downward of our eyesight genes. The same is probably true for machines and
muscle strength, hearing aids and hearing acuity, surgery, and all the other wonders of modern
technology. All of these things have been physical prosthesis which have the capacity to undue millions
of years of evolution. Now, the computer enters, and is a cognitive prosthesis which poses the danger of
undoing millions of years of our cognitive evolution. Are we concerned about that? I'll stop there.
Johan Viljoen [26 Feb 96] makes a good point reminding us that a large part of the world's population is
dealing with basic survival. I have certainly thought about this, even prior to my remarks here. In my
optimistic moments I like to believe that eventually, when technology becomes inexpensive enough, it
will help equalize these differences. But that time is a long way off, and people are hungry and shoeless
today. In the near future it is sadly true that technology may ADD to the divide between the advantaged
populations and the disadvantaged ones. I don't know the solution to this, at least not in the arena of
educational technology. Solutions to educational problems and issues must be tackled in parallel with
solutions to problems of world hunger, disease, etc. I must leave those solutions to people in other
professions (agriculture, medicine, etc.)
But I return to my optimistic side. Hunger and medical problems are increasing in severity with the
increase in population and increases in the cost of producing and distributing food and medicine. But the
cost of information technology is decreasing. We will not see a sudden change whereby one day
everyone suddenly gets a hand-held reading machine. But each year the technology will become
available to a greater number of people (NOT just the advantaged populations) and with that, their
capabilities for making a better living may increase. I'm in education because I believe that it is a critical
component of improving the quality of life.
Steve Tripp [26 Feb 96] seems mostly concerned with the accuracy of my predictions. I consider that less
important because I really think it is a matter of WHEN these things will occur, not IF they occur. I'll
discuss his concerns anyway.
Steve says reading machines are available now. Correct, and getting better all the time. The point was
about size, cost, and universal availability that might result.
But Steve says we must also be able to read labels, road signs, maps, etc. While a valid point, it seems to
assume that the rest of the world is standing still. With ever advancing technology, our future grocery
stores probably will not have little labels in the isles. Our cars might navigate themselves, rather than
requiring drivers reading road signs. (Work is already occurring on such "intelligent" highway systems.)
Maps will be replaced by future global positioning systems which can speak and give you directions. All
of these advances will be happening in parallel, moving us towards a world in which reading is less and
less necessary.
Steve says my dictation prediction is overly optimistic. Perhaps, but again, its just a matter of when.

Also, his main objection to my dictation prediction occurs because he is, I believe, confusing
transcribing and understanding. Understanding is necessary for language translation (my third
prediction) but NOT very necessary to take a speakers speech and transcribe it electronically. Sure there
may be problems with homonyms and such, but those problems will be tackled. People make those
mistakes now, in written communication, anyway, and we still manage to communicate effectively.
Steve makes the interesting comment that Japanese depends on its written form. I admit I know nothing
about Japanese linguistics, but I find that claim fascinating. Did the Japanese language spring into
existence in written form? (Said tongue in cheek.)
Steve says my translation prediction is also overly optimistic. Here I can agree more because translation
does depend on understanding. But again, its just a matter of time.
I did not understand the last point, that written versus aural communication differences contradict
Richard Clarks "mere vehicles" hypothesis. Would you explain a bit more, Steve? I doubt that Dick
Clark considers human modes of communication as equivalent to different media, even if related.
Jeff Oliver [26 Feb 96] suggests that technology might not only help some disabled populations, but also
further exclude some. I agree that this is definitely a danger. My whole point is that technology is a twoedged
sword. We seem to assume that communication technologies are all positive, unlike the
technologies of atomic energy, transportation (with its concomitant pollution problems), and chemistry.
But even communication technology presents problems and part of engineering our technology is to
maximize the benefits and minimize the negatives. Educational technologists must do what they can to
assure that technology serves us all in the long run, not just in the short run, and not just some of us.
Jeff's comment about language translation requiring understanding is correct, as I addressed in my reply
to Steve Tripp's comments. But again, its just a matter of time. (Am I sounding like a broken record?)
Jeff (being British) interpreted my comment that "most people don't learn a foreign language" as
American-centrism. But I stand by my comment. I was NOT thinking of Americans and forgetting the
Europeans. Europeans are a small part of the world population. How many people are in rural China
(over a billion?), India (800 million?) Indonesia (200 million?) and other parts of Asia, Africa, and
South America. I was thinking of those huge rural and third-world populations when making my
statement. If I am wrong, I hope someone with data will correct me.
Jeff suggests that cooperative learning is more appropriate or acceptable in schools than in business
industry training environments. That it is more acceptable I agree, but whether it is more appropriate is
debatable. Jeff said that business needs maximum learning in minimum time. An interesting statement.
My favorite and oft-repeated comment to my students is that Instructional Design is a series of
compromises. Maximum learning and minimum time are both good goals, but very much in opposition.
How do we compromise between them? Obviously, it depends on the urgency versus the severity of
errors. As Jeff implied (when discussing just in time learning), surgeons must be well trained. When you

are under the knife you don't care if your surgeon was efficiently trained. If an error causes catastrophe,
the mastery level of instruction should be higher. If errors are of little consequence (or even valuable),
then minimum time can take precedence over maximum learning. Perhaps my suggestions for
cooperative learning apply more where depth and mastery are important. However, speaking of
surgeons, I would point out that they, airline pilots, and many other professionals work in teams. So
another rule-of-thumb would be that if a job requires teamwork, train them in teams.
Jeff recommends that I consider replacing "plenty-of-time learning" with "plenty-of-time incomplete
learning" and that's a fair point. I certainly don't consider 100% mastery necessary all the time. But, as
discussed above, when the consequence of error are drastic, mastery is important. Determine the level of
mastery first, depending on the consequences of error. Then decide whether plenty-of-time learning or
just-in-time learning is more appropriate, depending on the probability that the knowledge or skills
really will be used on the job.
Stanley Supinski [26 Feb 96] agrees that human-computer-human interaction is more valuable than
human-computer interaction, but is concerned that my predictions of better human-computer
communication might prevent human-computer-human interaction.
I agree that this is a definite possibility. Computers may foster human-computer-human interaction (such
as with language translation) and may prevent it (like when people become addicted to computer
games). That is why we should be investigating HOW to foster human-computer-human interaction as
much as possible, despite progress on better computer interfaces.

27 Feb 96
Daniel M. Ivanick
[quoting Alessi's paper] On the other hand is the equally reasonable point of view that nobody
really owns knowledge and society will be better off if we all share it. Publishers... contend that
they own knowledge and want to charge all that the market can bear...
While some publishers may contend they own knowledge, that is not and has never been a part of
copyright law. Copyright law protects the actual expression, not the information content, of a publication.
This is a crucial difference. If knowledge were copyrightable, I could right a book on, say, Newtonian
Physics. Then, anyone else wanting to write on that topic would have to get my permission, since the
knowledge would be copyrighted by me.
This is obviously not the case. What is copyrighted in my hypothetical book are the actual words, the
expression I wrote to describe Newtonian Physics. No one else could come along and copy my words
and sell them for a profit.
To my mind, the compromise that Steve asks for between a publisher's wish to control his or her
publication and education's right to fair use already exists.
On a related topic, the suggestion for Clearinghouses to provide copies of articles or publications to
people who are willing to pay for them already exists today. They are called publishers.
Daniel Ivanick
Syracuse University
E-mail: dmivanic@syr.edu

27 Feb 96
Steve Tripp
[quoting Alessi, 27 Feb 96.a] Steve says my dictation prediction is overly optimistic. Perhaps, but
again, its just a matter of when. Also, his main objection to my dictation prediction occurs
because he is, I believe, confusing transcribing and understanding. Understanding is necessary for
language translation (my third prediction) but NOT very necessary to take a speakers speech and
transcribe it electronically.
Steve, You, like most people working outside linguistics, greatly underestimate the problem.
Transcribing [real world language], is ABSOLUTELY impossible without understanding. You, like
most people, think we speak in words that are made out of "letters." In fact we speak in blurs. There are
no white spaces between words. The "d" of dog is different from the "d" of dig. The "h" of hit is entirely
different from the "h" of human. There is no "n" in can't. Can a computer tell the difference between I
scream and ice cream? Try transcribing a language that you don't know. If it is continuous speech, you
can't begin to tell what the words are. If it is single words with "white spaces" between, you can't tell
what the "letters" are.
Granted, if you allow a long enough time frame, these problems will be solved, but ten to twenty years is
optimistic, in my opinion.
Steve makes the interesting comment that Japanese depends on its written form. I admit I know
nothing about Japanese linguistics, but I find that claim fascinating. Did the Japanese language
spring into existence in written form? (Said tongue in cheek.)
The Japanese language today is not the Japanese language of ancient times. When the Chinese writing
system was borrowed, it afforded a new way of creating words. The bulk of the Japanese language is
now a product of the written forms.
Steve says my translation prediction is also overly optimistic. Here I can agree more because
translation does depend on understanding. But again, its just a matter of time.
Just like higher salaries for professors.
I did not understand the last point, that written versus aural communication differences contradict
Richard Clarks "mere vehicles" hypothesis. Would you explain a bit more, Steve? I doubt that
Dick Clark considers human modes of communication as equivalent to different media, even if
related.

But if one is educated from books, that is a different medium from a "talking computer." Clark
(amazingly) does not define medium, but surely this qualifies. Raising questions about the "effects" of
learning in this way is taboo if you are a Clarkian.
I was NOT thinking of Americans and forgetting the Europeans. Europeans are a small part of the
world population. How many people are in rural China (over a billion?), India (800 million?)
Indonesia (200 million?) and other parts of Asia, Africa, and South America. I was thinking of
those huge rural and third-world populations when making my statement. If I am wrong, I hope
someone with data will correct me.
Most countries are multi-lingual. China (multi-dialectal, where the dialects are mutually unintelligible)
[Actually the difference between language and dialect is political, not linguistic. An old linguistics joke
is that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.], India, and Indonesia and all multilingual. The
degree to which the populations (especially the lower classes) are bilingual is problematical. Even
though a country is multilingual it is possible to be monolingual and live happily, especially if one lives
in a rural area. There is probably a general drift towards monolingualism, if enough of the population
can communicate in that language. In Singapore, where there are four official languages (Tamil, Malay,
Chinese, and English), young people who marry outside their ethnic group will tend to raise their
children speaking English. Others will do so simply for economic advantages.
You can communicate through a translator if you have time, but it is a slow and painful process. My
university is in Japan, but its official working language is English. Our faculty meetings are all
translated. If you think your faculty meetings are tedious you should come to ours. Even with skilled
translators, it is often the case that the translation is botched. Some languages (like English) express
hypotheticals more easily than others. This often produces great misunderstandings (remember, we are
not even using unreliable machines). Another problem is that some (most) speakers don't really know
what they are saying (they are composing as they speak), so it is no wonder that the translation is wrong.
If you really want to communicate, it is better to be bilingual. If machine translations are capable of 95%
of what human translators can do, we are still in trouble. Note that a specialized machine (Deep Blue), in
a highly rule-bound and constrained domain (chess), cannot beat a Grand Master. We are all Grand
Masters of language--a domain that is far messier than chess. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a
Deep Blue of language. I'll bet your computer can't even display the Japanese characters in my signature.

27 Feb 96.b
Steve Alessi
Daniel Ivanick [26 Feb 96] points out the difference between the intent of copyright law and how people
interpret it. I agree fully with what he said. Different groups (publishers, teachers) interpret the law to
better suit their needs. The fair use provision is rather vague. Many lawyers say that the only way to test
it for any particular purpose is to go to court. (Of course, that is a pretty self-serving claim.)
Daniel also points out, correctly, that copyright law is intended to protect the expression of an idea, not
the idea. But people try to bend even that to their advantage. Haven't software publishers tried to stretch
that distinction when they make "look and feel" claims about their software?
As for whether publishers already serve as clearinghouses, I guess I did not express myself well enough.
Yes, publishers do provide a type of clearinghouse for writers to profit from their work. They are forprofit
clearinghouses. I would also like to see NON-profit clearinghouses which take advantage of
Internet distribution to hold down costs. The publishers of some research journals charge such incredibly
high fees for their journals that research libraries are finding it impossible to continue subscriptions. And
it is the faculty of those same institutions that write many of the articles in those journals. There is a
growing movement among research universities to start non-profit journals themselves to eliminate the
expensive middlemen.
Steve Tripp [27 Feb 96] added some useful information about linguistics. Yes, Steve, I am aware of the
complexity even of transcription. Transcribing NATURALLY spoken language (especially at the rate I
speak it) is very difficult. But great progress HAS been made with computers that take dictation if you
speak slowly, and clearly, and train the device to your voice. That is what I had in mind. Yes, I'm sure
that even then, some comprehension is necessary for good transcription. I'm confident that computer
scientists will also make progress on machine understanding of language.
You are right that in the recent Deep Blue chess match, the IBM computer Deep Blue lost the MATCH
to a grand master. I think you were a bit crafty in not pointing out that Deep Blue DID win ONE of the
games. Not too many years ago, chess players said even THAT would never happen.
I'll accept your proposition that a larger proportion of the world is multilingual than I implied. But does
that change my point? Suppose a person knows English, Chinese, and Indonesian. Will that help them if
they are traveling in southern Mexico? You can know a dozen languages, but there are still countries
where you would have difficulty communicating and books you cannot read. What IS my point you ask?
When language translators become available, most people (even multilingual people) will be
DELIGHTED to use them rather than learn new languages that they do not already know. Yes,

communicating through a translator may be a slow and painful process, but learning new languages (as
an adult) is even slower.

28 Feb 96
Steve Tripp
[quoting Alessi, 27 Feb 96.b] You are right that in the recent Deep Blue chess match, the IBM
computer Deep Blue lost the MATCH to a grand master. I think you were a bit crafty in not
pointing out that Deep Blue DID win ONE of the games. Not too many years ago, chess players
said even THAT would never happen.
Yeah but, my point is that chess is easy and English is difficult.
When language translators become available, most people (even multilingual people) will be
DELIGHTED to use them rather than learn new languages that they do not already know. Yes,
communicating through a translator may be a slow and painful process, but learning new
languages (as an adult) is even slower.
Right. Here in Japan, small portable bilingual dictionaries are selling quite well. There are also small
phrase translators with expressions like "How much for one hour?" and "Don't kill me. You can have my
wallet." These are canned expressions though. No real translation is taking place.
There is a company in Europe with a web site that does on-line translation. I tried it, but the result came
back scrambled, so I can't comment.

27 Feb 96
Ari Naidoo
As another South African citizen I have to agree with Johan Viljoen [26 Feb 96] from Pretoria
Technikon: we are in danger of creating a new form of global apartheid with us "electronically literates"
becoming the privileged elite. The use of technology, portable or not, does not offer a solution for this
problem. Most of IT supplies a ledge for those who already have a toe hold.
The language problem in South Africa is not going to be solved overnight. Here is no Germanic base for
the young learners to find toe holds and to scramble onto the ledge of English empowerment. The 1990s
has seen more young learners motivated to be part of this new nation--others want it yesterday. The
danger of introducing technology to the masses is that the short-cuts will be seen as the real thing-particularly
in the light of our trying to telescope evolution into a smaller, "quicker" time frame. There is
no stopping technology now, except if it were as "freely accessible" as the Internet (I would not be able
to afford e-mail, etc., if it were not one of the perks of my institution). The closest I have been to IT's
empowering is seeing the cumulative empowerment of the word processor used at the undergraduate
level in my unit (a computer-assisted language)--it has been very successful at third-year undergraduate
level--not earlier. A thousand 286XTs could alter the writing world forever!
The observations made last week by Stan Supinsky (ala John Underwood) re: the "dialog that occurs in
front of the screen rather than on it" are pertinent. But the user who speaks English as Another Language
is also encouraged to respond to the screen (machine to human interaction) because of the longer turntaking
intervals--they are not pressurized to respond.
My concern is that while the rest of the English speaking world is designing an IT back-pack--which
could also assist the disadvantaged communities to get a toe hold on literacy--we are forgetting that a
pair of shoes might be a better idea.
Ari Naidoo
Division of Language Usage
University of Durban Westville
KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa
E-mail: anaidoo@pixie.udw.ca.za

27 Feb 96
Janet E Jacobson
[referring to Viljoen, 26 Feb 95] I just left IBM. They are now all running around with hand-held
communications devices. Offices have been eliminated so that you are now like a traveling salesman.
The future is HERE!
Janet E Jacobson
E-mail: jej13@columbia.edu

28 Feb 96
Johan Viljoen
[quoting Jacobson, 27 Feb 96] I just left IBM. They are now all running around with hand-held
communications devices. Offices have been eliminated so that you are now like a traveling
salesman. The future is HERE!
Janet might have misread my message. I referred to "such people," meaning Third World/Developing
Countries.
My concern is exactly that--the IBM environment and culture are light-years removed from Third World
conditions where most people either do not even know or don't have electricity yet. And THAT is not
going to change significantly in the next five to ten years, unless IBM starts helping to erect power
pylons in Africa tomorrow.
The future might be there with you in the USA, but it is definitely not even a Flying Dutchman (or
American) on the horizon yet for most of our continent and the rest of the Third World.
South Africa is in the rather remarkable position that a smallish, sophisticated First World component
and a large Developing/Third World section are supposed to meet somewhere. Could IT help to bridge
the gap? (I believe it (IT) can, in a country like ours.)
I do not propose to have solutions--I merely ask the questions. Anyway, thanks for reminding me of how
far we are behind! ;-)
Secondly, allow me to confirm what Steve Tripp [27 Feb 96] wrote about the difficulty of transcription
and translation. An anecdote:
Two students walked into my office and in so-called Black South African English asked where they
could get information on "mets-n-signs." I asked them to repeat, twice. I still heard "mets-n-signs." I told
them that we did not offer any courses in "medicine science" or "medical science" or whatever at our
institution. They explained that it was a remedial/bridging course that they wanted to attend. I then
realized that they were referring to a Maths and Science course offered by our Teacher Training
Department.
The fact that I was born here and have been teaching speakers of that particular form of English for
years could not save me from misunderstanding. Good luck to the machine that can handle all the
varieties of the Queen's language! And we haven't even touched upon idiolect yet...

28 Feb 96
Kevin Stall
[quoting Alessi, 27 Feb 96.b] As for whether publishers already serve as clearinghouses, I guess I
did not express myself well enough. Yes, publishers do provide a type of clearinghouse for
writers to profit from their work. They are for-profit clearinghouses. I would also like to see NONprofit
clearinghouses which take advantage of Internet distribution to hold down costs. ... There is
a growing movement among research universities to start non-profit journals themselves to
eliminate the expensive middlemen.
That's not a bad idea, how about a project similar to the Gutenburg Project? One for each discipline,
providing free access to articles for educational and professional use. It also needs to be able to provide a
acceptable forum for education departments to consider it as "publishing."
Kevin Stall
Crown Communications
E-mail: stallppp@corcomsv.corcom.com

29 Feb 96
Steve Tripp
[quoting Stall, 28 Feb 96] That's not a bad idea, how about a project similar to the Gutenburg
Project? One for each discipline, providing free access to articles for educational and professional
use.
I volunteer to be a repository for these papers. Let's talk about the format.

29 Feb 96
Peter C. Vrionides
(1) A good friend of mine is the founder and owner of a "technology type" temporary employment
service. He was commenting (lamenting?) that many technology training manuals are being re-written to
aim at the LCD (you know, the lowest common denominator), so that the illiterate can comprehend them.
(2) About 20 years ago I was in a local "watering hole" in New Orleans during lunch time and began
talking with a Navy recruiter. Having been in the Navy, we traded "sea stories." He was perplexed
because one needed a high school diploma to get in the Navy and when they would enter, waving their
prized possession, he would hand it back to them and ask them to read it to him. Many could not.
I know this is a can of worms that is best opened elsewhere at another forum but common sense tells me
that we have to stop promoting students regardless of their lack of comprehension all in the name of
promoting their self-esteem. All the self-esteem in the world won't get Johnny a job if he doesn't know
how to read or add.
(3) We must motivate the students. However, this is hard to do when the teacher has to compete with the
"entertaining factors" of TV and video games. Most teachers learn how to teach but aren't trained how to
be entertainers. The occasional "dynamic" teacher motivates his/her students because he/she has the
natural "gift" of teaching on an entertaining level that can compete with the other input factors the
student receives during the rest of his/her day.
The solution? Who knows? Perhaps institutions of higher learning should start offering "Dale Carnegie"
type undergraduate courses. At least they might have a chance at grasping the students' attention.
The ability to read, comprehend and make educated decisions, in my opinion, is a must for anyone to
survive the competition with those that can.
Peter C Vrionides
E-mail: pcv48920@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu

1 Mar 96
Steve Alessi
On the issue of how this all relates to third world countries, Johan Viljoen and Ari Naidoo both point out
problems such as poverty and lack of infrastructure (e.g., electricity). These are good points, but I would
like to believe they are not insurmountable. As mentioned in a previous post, some developing nations
without land-based telephone infrastructure are taking advantage of cellular systems to upgrade their
phone technology without land lines. I would hope that the hand-held computers of the future will be a
combination of battery and solar powered. But this is a detail. Again, I emphasize that my predictions
are not made with a sense of blind optimism, "won't the electronic world of tomorrow be neat and rosy,"
but the opposite. Just as I think Johan [Viljoen, 26 Feb 96] said, there is the danger that developing
nations will see technology as an alternative to a literate society. I don't think that would be good.
Ari [Naidoo, 27 Feb 96] I think raises a more serious point. He says, "My concern is that while the rest of
the English speaking world is designing an IT back-pack--which could also assist the disadvantaged
communities to get a toe hold on literacy--we are forgetting that a pair of shoes might be a better idea."
Certainly the problem of hunger or poverty is a more immediate one for the person who is poor or
hungry. Does that mean that all the world's professions should turn their attention to solving hunger and
poverty? Clearly those problems must be dealt with, but in parallel we should be dealing with health,
education, safety, and other things that affect the welfare, both short-term and long-term, of humanity.
Ari, while your point about the severity of such problems is very good, are you suggesting that
educational technologists would better serve the world joining the Peace Corps? The problems of the
world are varied and the world needs people in many different professions (health, agriculture,
education, transportation, energy, etc.) working in parallel to solve its many problems. There are people
working on problems like hunger and poverty. Just like illiteracy, those are very difficult problems to
solve. I believe they are intertwined. Education is part, even if a small part, of the solution to hunger and
poverty.
Concerning my suggestion about non-profit clearinghouses, Steve Tripp [29 Feb 96] generously offered
to serve as one. Of course, we already have FREE clearinghouses for many purposes. For papers on
instructional technology there is InTRO (Instructional Technology Research Online) at . There are FTP
sites with freeware and shareware. I'm saying we also need non-profit clearinghouses for people who
have something they want to sell (like educational software, books, or clip-media) but want to sell it at
low cost and don't want a middleman getting most of the profit. Such a clearinghouse would have to set
up secure payment schemes, such as having Mastercard or Visa accounts. (Are you ready for that,
Steve?) The current method of putting shareware on freely accessible archive sites is fine as long as you
don't mind the product being essentially free, since many people never pay shareware fees. We would
find a lot more professional material available on the net if there were clearinghouses that provided the
producers a better guarantee of livelihood.

On the issues of literacy and numeracy (or the lack of them) Peter Vrionides [29 Feb 96] commented
that, "The ability to read, comprehend and make educated decisions, in my opinion, is a must for anyone
to survive the competition with those that can." I agree that in today's world Peter is absolutely correct.
My whole thesis is that tomorrow's world might be different. History is full of occupations and human
skills that were once critical, but are today unnecessary. Now, while I have indicated that this might
soon happen with the skill of reading, I never said anything about "comprehending" or "making
educated decisions." I suspect it will be several more years before computers do that (also said tongue in
cheek).
On the topics of just in time learning and the empirical approach to instructional design, T. Kent Thomas
[26 Feb 96] had some good comments. To summarize some of his comments, I hope accurately, he takes
the position that in industry, just-in-time learning is becoming the norm as is just-in-time manufacturing,
that in industry time is money and time spent on education may even be wasted if (as in the example of
IBM) employees go to your competitors, and that there is neither time nor money to try multiple
instructional methods or use control groups in designing instruction.
First a minor point, I was never suggesting control groups. Even in research I'm beginning to be more in
favor of the developmental methodology as Tom Reeves has recommended. But the more critical thing
is this. Kent, are you saying that because these are the typical business attitudes and norms that they are
necessarily CORRECT, or are you saying that these are UNFORTUNATELY the typical business
attitudes and instructional technologists should at least be aware of them? I would agree with the latter,
not the former.
[quoting Thomas, 26 Feb 96] To those of us providing training in industry, the crisis is already
here (T.H. Bell documented it years ago). We look to technology to help us address it today. We
need technologies such as just-in-time training, EPSSs, CBT, distance learning, etc. We look
toward as scientific a method of predicting success as possible. We need to know what
instructional strategy or technique works reliably in a given set of circumstances, not necessarily
the optimum solution. We need to choose the most cost-effective solution from among alternative
solutions, most all the time. We need reliable effectiveness, efficiency, and predictable risk. We
need results at the lowest possible cost. Hopefully ITForum can also serve the diversity of
practitioners in industry, not just educators, or academia.
These are points well taken and I agree with some of them. But, just as Kent thinks I have simplified
things by being concerned only with academia, I think he has simplified the variety of goals and needs in
industry. First another minor point, the majority of students in our Instructional Design and Technology
program at Iowa go into business and industry training jobs and not into academia, so I am more
concerned with training than Kent thinks. But the more important point is the great variety of goals and
needs in industry training. In an earlier posting [Alessi, 27 Feb 96.a] I discussed the issue of error
consequences. The consequences of error by an airline pilot are more severe than, for example, a
manufacturing error which causes a batch of sweaters to be the wrong color. While textile
manufacturing may deserve training at the lowest possible cost, airline pilot training does not.

Furthermore, the phrase "lowest possible cost" assumes we have some way of knowing what that lowest
possible cost is. We rarely do. Rather, we make estimates and deal with probabilities. For some training
it is safe to err in the direction of spending too little money. For other training we should err in the
direction of spending a little too much. The issue of error consequence is just one example of my
contention that industry training has many variables, probably more than academic education. A wider
variety of skills and knowledge are taught in industry, the learning environments vary more, the learners
vary more, the trainers vary more, and so on. So to look for a one-size-fits-all training solution would be
unwise. I'm concerned that some companies look to just-in-time learning as such a solution.
As for having as scientific a method as possible, I agree with you, Kent. But we probably disagree as to
HOW MUCH is possible. I believe that designers tend to place too much confidence in the prescriptions
of various instructional design models and too little emphasis on evaluation and revision, thus turning
out instruction that is not ready. You are right that evaluation and revision is expensive and I certainly
don't suggest is should occur until training is perfect. But I do believe there is a middle ground between
perfect and awful, and that more attention to evaluation and revision is what will get you to that middle
ground.
This ITForum discussion officially ends today. If there are new comments over the weekend, I'll post a
final message on Monday. If not, I would like to thank everyone for their comments and arguments.
Although I may appear to have a retort for every point of disagreement, I'm perfectly willing to admit
that I'm probably wrong about half the time. Now, if I could only know which half.

1 Mar 96
Richard Cornell
I wonder why no one mentioned the parallel between the use of hand-held calculators and the perceived
degradation of math skills among us and your own vision of hand-held computers who do linguistically,
much the same thing (or might)?
It was reassuring to see comments made relative to the human and humane needs of individuals,
especially those in under-developed area of the world. Your [Alessi, 1 Mar 96] retort that hunger,
homelessness, and plague are but a portion of the help needed, and that education (as well as cultural,
psychological and other areas) must also occur concurrently is a point well-taken, one which UNESCO
has been working on for decades.
Dick Cornell
University of Central Florida
E-mail: cornell@pegasus.cc.uck.edu

4 Mar 96
Ari Naidoo
Forgive the apparent obscurity of my attempt to sustain the mountain-climbing metaphor--I wish to
revisit Johan Viljoen's point about "us" up here (the technologically empowered elite) and "them" down
there (the disempowered mass). My concern is that the faster technology advances the greater the chasm.
The "shoes," are the basic necessities as opposed to the "IT back-pack" which is not just the luxury
option but becoming technological obsoletism by default (better > quicker > obsolete > better...) We are
in danger of missing the obvious pointers--technology for the masses in Southern Africa needs to jog
before it can sprint.
I am not "suggesting that educational technologists would better serve the world joining the Peace
Corps." Technology has became an industry in which there are too many stakeholders with vested
interests. The "we" up here are benefiting from such forces as those on the Internet. And I agree that "the
problems of the world are varied... and that just like illiteracy, those are very difficult problems to
solve." But in South Africa, educators have to often put technology-type solutions in the background
with the needs of the learner in the South African context in the foreground.

4 Mar 96
T. Kent Thomas
[quoting Alessi, 1 Mar 96] On the topics of just in time learning and the empirical approach to
instructional design, T. Kent Thomas had some good comments. To summarize some of his
comments, I hope accurately, he takes the position that in industry, just in time learning is
becoming the norm as is just in time manufacturing, that in industry time is money and time spent
on education may even be wasted if (as in the example of IBM) employees go to your
competitors, and that there is neither time nor money to try multiple instructional methods or use
control groups in designing instruction.
Steve accurately captured most of my points, with one need expansion needed. In the case of IBM, their
investment in training can and is actually being "used against them" by their competition. Many of their
former employees now work for the competition, or their "intellectual property" or expertise is no longer
the "property of IBM," but available in the general marketplace. As an example, my current "boss" is an
exceptionally well-trained and experienced ex-IBM'er who took an early retirement. We're a software
company, a Microsoft Partner, and an IBM Solution Provider--IBM is now buying our services, as is
their competitor, Compaq.
First a minor point, I was never suggesting control groups. Even in research I'm beginning to be
more in favor of the developmental methodology as Tom Reeves has recommended. But the more
critical thing is this. Kent, are you saying that because these are the typical business attitudes and
norms that they are necessarily CORRECT, or are you saying that these are UNFORTUNATELY
the typical business attitudes and instructional technologists should at least be aware of them? I
would agree with the latter, not the former.
I didn't mean to imply that Steve recommended the use of control groups. I used this only as an example
of the "classical" scientific study. I also support and use the developmental methodology, but am daily
confronted with its current limitations. First, our tools to create IT-based learning materials (such as
CBT, EPSS, distance learning, etc.) are generally not conducive to "rapid-prototyping" types of
development methods. It is simply too labor-intensive to make constant changes in an evolutionary
design. Second, the client who provides the subject-matter expertise has very limited time, and cannot or
will not make the time available for frequent, in-depth reviews of the evolving design. The single
greatest challenge is to "capture" the content from a very busy client in the least amount of time
possible. Third, there's the perceptions of the client that do not support a developmental approach, such
as "if you're the 'experts' then why do you need so much of my time" or "why do I need to pay for all
these revisions, when you didn't 'get it right' the first time," etc., etc., etc.
But, just as Kent thinks I have simplified things by being concerned only with academia, I think
he has simplified the variety of goals and needs in industry. First another minor point, the

majority of students in our Instructional Design and Technology program at Iowa go into business
and industry training jobs and not into academia, so I am more concerned with training than Kent
thinks. But the more important point is the great variety of goals and needs in industry training. In
an earlier posting I discussed the issue of error consequences. The consequences of error by an
airline pilot are more severe than, for example, a manufacturing error which causes a batch of
sweaters to be the wrong color. While textile manufacturing may deserve training at the lowest
possible cost, airline pilot training does not.
Just as Steve acknowledges over-simplification to make a point, I acknowledge over-simplification also.
I fully acknowledge the variety of goals and needs in training. Please note that I said "we need results" at
the lowest possible cost. I stand by that statement. Steve spoke of his perspective at Iowa--my
background is 12 years experience as an Air Force training systems analyst, and now five years in
industry. I fully understand the issue of error consequences--the Air Force task analysis methods used
for media selection require that the tasks be rated on frequency of performance, difficulty of learning,
and task criticality (to address the issue of non-performance). Branson, in the "original ISD-model"
addressed all these issues, in addition to the requirement to select the least expensive method from
alternative, effective methods (Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.I., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., King, F.J., &
Hannum, W.H. (1975). Inter-service Procedures for Instructional System Development. Ft Monroe,
VA: US Army Training and Doctrine Command).
To "counter" his specific example of "airline pilot" I'd also point out the ongoing debates in military and
aviation training related to the issues of "fidelity" and "realism," which are the primary determinants of
cost is a simulation-based training method. As an example, a computer-driven mockup of a cockpit
(including real switches and gauges) to teach cockpit procedures training costs about six to ten times the
amount of an equivalent multimedia-based CBT that simulates exactly the same functionality on-screen.
The training has been proven (to most who will objectively analyze the data from extensive tests) to be
equally effective. Consequently, most cockpit procedures training now being developed is now being
done by CBT, because it is much more cost-effective. (The much more expensive flight simulators are
"reserved" for teaching the more complex tasks that require refined psycho-motor skills.)
Furthermore, the phrase "lowest possible cost" assumes we have some way of knowing what that
lowest possible cost is. We rarely do. Rather, we make estimates and deal with probabilities. For
some training it is safe to err in the direction of spending too little money. For other training we
should err in the direction of spending a little too much. The issue of error consequence is just one
example of my contention that industry training has many variables, probably more than
academic education. A wider variety of skills and knowledge are taught in industry, the learning
environments vary more, the learners vary more, the trainers vary more, and so on. So to look for
a one-size-fits-all training solution would be unwise. I'm concerned that some companies look to
just-in-time learning as such a solution.
Steve, I agree with your evaluation of the challenges of designing training for industry, both in variety
and complexity of the needs and in the expectations. My clients fully expect (and perhaps rightly so) that
I provide accurate estimates and probabilities. That's just my point. I develop materials that are
"guaranteed to be effective" on firm, fixed-price bids. Time-and-materials contracts are virtually a thing

of the past, and the clients require vendors to compete against defined requirements (usually very vague
ones, however) and then select a vendor based upon either least cost or overall "best value" (which at
least allows for some design variables other than cost).
By the way, where did the "one-size-fits all" come from? I didn't recommend one, nor do I think this is
an accurate characterization of any of the instructional methods or technologies being discussed. I think
this is an over-simplification also. My view of them follows:
"Just-in-time" training (JITT) is more of a concept or philosophy, not a specific technology. It focuses
on providing the training as close to the point of need as possible, and doesn't identify a specific delivery
method or medium. Doesn't this make sense, given what we know about retention, transfer, and
practice? Provide the training as close to the need (increasing retention and transfer) and provide almost
immediate application (i.e., practice) in a "real-world" environment.
An EPSS (which I characterize as a subset of JITT) is more a design perspective or technique, not a
technology. An EPSS is of necessity a computer-based solution that is designed to provide all the
necessary support (job aid, reference information, or training) on-line, at the point of performance. If
there's a representative model for an EPSS, I haven't found one yet, and I've fielded two and have two
more in design now. While I don't think an EPSS can fully replace other training methods or provide
equivalent results in all cases, I still recommend them as a "best value" type of solution. If training and
support funds are limited (and they always seem to be) the combination of training and job aids offered
by an EPSS seems to yield a good combination of cost, effectiveness, efficiency, ongoing availability,
and continued use.
CBT can obviously implement a variety of instructional strategies and teach a wide variety of content, as
Steve so aptly describes in his book, Computer-based Training: Methods and Development. (I have both
the first and second editions and recommend it frequently as the overall best basic book on CBT design
available--is there a third edition available or coming soon?)
As for having as scientific a method as possible, I agree with you, Kent. But we probably disagree
as to HOW MUCH is possible. I believe that designers tend to place too much confidence in the
prescriptions of various instructional design models and too little emphasis on evaluation and
revision, thus turning out instruction that is not ready. You are right that evaluation and revision is
expensive and I certainly don't suggest is should occur until training is perfect. But I do believe
there is a middle ground between perfect and awful, and that more attention to evaluation and
revision is what will get you to that middle ground.
I agree that evaluation and revision are desirable, but overall I've found that industrial clients view this
cycle as "mistakes that need correcting that they shouldn't be required to pay for." As for how much is
possible, I don't know, either. I just know that I'd like more accuracy in my projections and more
confidence in my designs (which are pretty eclectic, by-the-way) since "my paycheck depends upon
them." I also believe there's a middle ground--perhaps I spent too long in the military, where "it's close
enough for government work" was a prevalent paradigm. I'm accurate enough to continue making a

living doing it, and "effective enough" to get repeat business from Fortune 100 companies--but that's
about it--I certainly haven't gotten "rich and famous" doing it. Perhaps all I'm suggesting is a
methodology to capture what revisions are made, and why, (based upon evaluation) and to hypothesize
those "lessons learned" into more prescriptive guidance. If we can't "turn IT or ID into a science" can we
at least move it closer to a "craft" where there are guidelines, generally accepted practices, and pretty
consistent quality? (If you want a challenge, try explaining to a novice client the difference between
"good CBT" and "bad CBT" that they've heard so much about.)
As far as my concerns for efficiency (effectiveness in the least amount of time), I'd refer you to the Nov
95 issue of Training magazine, whose cover story was "No Time To Train" and leave you with a
paraphasiztation of Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline, 1990):
The only sustainable source of competitive advantage is your organization's ability to
learn faster than the competition.

5 Mar 96
Steve Alessi
Some more interesting points of discussion. Unfortunately, since I'm now giving and grading midterms,
I don't have time to discuss every point. But here are a few.
[quoting Cornell, 1 Mar 96] I wonder why no one mentioned the parallel between the use of handheld
calculators and the perceived degradation of math skills among us and your own vision of
hand-held computers who do linguistically, much the same thing (or might)?
Good point. Math educators have already been facing the issue for several years. As I said in the original
paper, reading and writing are just examples, perhaps extreme ones, of human abilities of which
computers are becoming capable. Computers (or more generally technology) will be capable of more
and more each year. The case of calculators and math skills may be useful to consider though, because
many math educators believe that calculators have reduced the exercise of low level math skills, freeing
students for higher level problem solving. Is there something "higher level" than reading, which reading
machines will free us to spend more time and effort on?
[quoting Naidoo, 4 Mar 96] And I agree that "the problems of the world are varied... and that just
like illiteracy, those are very difficult problems to solve." But in South Africa, educators have to
often put technology-type solutions in the background with the needs of the learner in the South
African context in the foreground.
I'm very interested in hearing what you think those needs are (seriously). My co-author Stan Trollip is
South African and, though I shouldn't really speak for him, I recall his saying that South Africa needs
many more teachers than its universities can currently produce, so giving each teacher as much
technological support as possible is an important part of the solution.
[quoting Thomas, 4 Mar 96] In the case of IBM, their investment in training can and is actually
being "used against them" by their competition. Many of their former employees now work for
the competition, or their "intellectual property" or expertise is no longer the "property of IBM,
"but available in the general marketplace.
This is of course true. But let's analyze this problem a little deeper. IBM can also hire (raid?) employees
from THEIR competition. Arthur Anderson in Chicago is also well known for excellent training and
they frequently get raided, including by IBM. Let's consider the result of following this concern (being
raided by the competition) to the extreme. If all companies decided that training was not worth it, that
they should hire already trained people from the competition, then nobody would invest much in training
and everyone would soon find that there was nobody left to raid! Now I realize that companies do not

"think" like a single entity, but surely management must realize that they can't all depend on someone
else doing the training. On the other hand, although it would be nice if all companies did good training,
perhaps that would only create MORE of a temptation for a few companies to do no training and just
depend on raiding. I admit that this kind of thinking leads into a vicious circle and I don't know the way
out. Perhaps a reasonable point of view is that a company should do training equivalent to their
competitors and assume that their gains and losses from raiding will cancel out.
...not support a developmental approach, such as "if you're the 'experts' then why do you need so
much of my time" or "why do I need to pay for all these revisions, when you didn't 'get it right'
the first time," etc., etc., etc. ... I agree that evaluation and revision are desirable, but overall I've
found that industrial clients view this cycle as "mistakes that need correcting that they shouldn't
be required to pay for..."
Yes, I guess we have all run into that. But again I ask, does that make it right? Automotive industries
certainly recognize that your first design of a new automobile will require evaluation and revision. The
software industry recognizes this about their software. Why do people assume that we should get
training correct on the very first draft? My answer is that they really don't think so, but say what they say
in trying to get whatever they can for their money. Part of being an instructional designer is educating
the client about the necessity of evaluation and revision (without losing their business, of course).
To "counter" his specific example of "airline pilot" I'd also point out the ongoing debates in
military and aviation training related to the issues of "fidelity" and "realism," which are the
primary determinants of cost is a simulation-based training method. As an example, a computerdriven
mockup of a cockpit (including real switches and gauges) to teach cockpit procedures
training costs about 6 to 10 times the amount of an equivalent multimedia-based CBT that
simulates exactly the same functionality on-screen. The training has been proven (to most who
will objectively analyze the data from extensive tests) to be equally effective. Consequently, most
cockpit procedures training now being developed is now being done by CBT, because it is much
more cost-effective. (The much more expensive flight simulators are "reserved" for teaching the
more complex tasks that require refined psycho-motor skills.)
My main research interest is simulation fidelity. I agree fully that military trainers assumed (in the past)
that high fidelity would be better. As a result the military spent many of our tax dollars on overly
realistic simulators. And it still goes on! What is needed is to determine the best mix of technologies
through the entire course of instruction (see Carter, G., & Trollip, S.R. (1980). A Constrained
maximization extension to incremental transfer effectiveness, or, how to mix your training technologies.
Human Factors, 22, 141-152.). I don't think this counters my point about airline pilots at all. We should
be willing to err on the side of spending too much money training them, rather than too little.
By the way, where did the "one-size-fits all" come from? I didn't recommend one ... Just-in-time"
training (JITT) is more of a concept or philosophy, not a specific technology. It focuses on
providing the training as close to the point of need as possible, and doesn't identify a specific
delivery method or medium. Doesn't this make sense, given what we know about retention,
transfer and practice?

I know I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths, but the second paragraph seems like an example
of what I meant by "one-size-fits-all." What do I mean? The second paragraph seems to ask: "doesn't
JITT always make sense?" My belief is that no, it does not always make sense. Some things take a
longer time to learn and JITT is not appropriate for them. I realize Kent didn't say "always", but it
seemed to be implied.
An EPSS (which I characterize as a subset of JITT)...
I think EPSSs are great, but I don't consider them a subset of JITT at all. As I said in my original piece, I
prefer to see them for review or reference, not initial training. Now, in keeping with my previous
paragraph I will amend that a little. If what is to be learned is simple and CAN be learned easily and
rapidly, than an EPSS for JITT might be reasonable. But for more complex skills or knowledge, and
especially when the consequence of error are severe, I prefer more thorough instruction, distributed
practice, and an EPSS for review and reference on the job.

6 Mar 96
T. Kent Thomas
[quoting Alessi, 5 Mar 96] But let's analyze this problem a little deeper. IBM can also hire (raid?)
employees from THEIR competition. Arthur Anderson in Chicago is also well known for
excellent training and they frequently get raided, including by IBM. Let's consider the result of
following this concern (being raided by the competition) to the extreme.
My point was "fear of raiding" as much as "fear of losing their return on investment." I see a general
trend in this direction. Companies fear that today's very mobile worker, with little of the "old company
loyalty" (for good reason, I might add) will leave (often going to a competitor) before they have
recouped their training investment. This trend is evident in companies beginning to require an employee
to reimburse the company if they have received college tuition, expensive specialized skills training
(such as Novell CNE), or workshops/conferences--if the employee leaves the company within a
specified period after the training. (The U.S. military has done this same thing with "Active Duty
Service Commitments" for years, by the way.)
If all companies decided that training was not worth it, that they should hire already trained
people from the competition, then nobody would invest much in training and everyone would
soon find that there was nobody left to raid! Now I realize that companies do not "think" like a
single entity, but surely management must realize that they can't all depend on someone else
doing the training. On the other hand, although it would be nice if all companies did good
training, perhaps that would only create MORE of a temptation for a few companies to do no
training and just depend on raiding. I admit that this kind of thinking leads into a vicious circle
and I don't know the way out.
Yes, it's a vicious circle. Many companies see training as a "necessary evil" with high expenses and
questionable results (and return on investment). So the trends are toward: (1) Training at the least
expense, utilizing the technologies we're discussing; (2) Pressure to show immediate results of training
(near transfer); (3) Training in the workplace, since travel and per diem are typically 40-60% of the cost
of training in a classroom environment; (4) Training that's directly relevant to the task at hand--no more,
no less (some might call this minimal training); and (5) "reserving" the advanced, in-depth, or theoretical
education/training for only the "best, brightest, and most deserving." This might seem to be near-sighted
to some, but given the circumstances, such as today's employee making at least five to seven career
moves/shifts in their lifetime, the "return on investment" in training is becoming looked at similar to
"research and development" types of budget categories, i.e., show the most results at the lowest cost.
Yes, I guess we have all run into that. But again I ask, does that make it right? Automotive
industries certainly recognize that your first design of a new automobile will require evaluation
and revision.

Yes, and the automotive industry has to pay ALL the expenses related to product recalls. When has a
"school system" or "training department" ever paid to recall a "deficient graduate" and correct the
problems. However, when you're dealing contracts that require "guaranteed results" (thank goodness that
these are very clearly spelled out) at a firm, fixed price, you simply must "get as close as possible" the
first time through the development cycle.
The software industry recognizes this about their software.
And the software industry pays for this expense. Those of us in the custom software development
industry live by another premise from the "commercial, off-the-shelf" software industry. We use a
severity rating system for all identified "bugs." All bugs rated at "X" severity level or higher are fixed as
soon as possible at the developer's expense. All bugs below that level are subject to incorporation in a
forthcoming general release, and the cost of fixing those is often negotiated and shared (as are all design
flaws). (As an aside, the commercial, off-the-shelf software industry has a different approach, and often
leaves known bugs until the next general release. If forced to by media or market pressures, they will do
a "bug fix release" and post it to the net, Compuserve, etc.--but typically only when forced into it.)
Why do people assume that we should get training correct on the very first draft? My answer is
that they really don't think so, but say what they say in trying to get whatever they can for their
money. Part of being an instructional designer is educating the client about the necessity of
evaluation and revision (without losing their business, of course).
Yes, it's a struggle to incorporate an iterative design and development process with the client. It's also a
struggle to get them to pay for it! It's difficult to get the time in the development schedule, it's difficult to
get sufficient SME input, it's difficult to get extensive alpha or beta reviewers, etc. (It's even a struggle
to use many of today's tools to implement such an iterative process.) My basic premise still holds: the
client has high expectations the first time "out of the chute" in addition to low cost expectations.
My main research interest is simulation fidelity. I agree fully that military trainers assumed (in the
past) that high fidelity would be better. As a result the military spent many of our tax dollars on
overly realistic simulators. And it still goes on! What is needed is to determine the best mix of
technologies through the entire course of instruction... I don't think this counters my point about
airline pilots at all. We should be willing to err on the side of spending too much money training
them, rather than too little.
I agree with Steve as his point relates to airline pilots, air traffic controllers, and Alaskan pipeline pump
station operators (I've been involved in using CBT simulations to train them all) and the like. But, how
much does the same airline industry invest in training flight attendants and ticket agents--significantly
less, and they're also using these same technologies in those areas also. Granted they do not have
catastrophic "error consequences"--nor does the majority of most needed skills in the workplace (In my
humble opinion, at least). How much do you err on the "high side" when you may be teaching someone
things like: Introduction to Win95, Introduction to Office '95, Time and Record-keeping, Company

Vacation and Benefits Policy, Teamwork, Effective Communication Skills, Sexual Harassment, OSHA
Requirements, Effective Meetings, etc. There's an incredible "laundry list" of required training for
virtually every new employee. Where do you err "on the high side"--those places with the highest risk
(cost of non-performance) and those areas of highest potential return of investment? Where do you "cut
costs"--anywhere else?
I know I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths... The second paragraph seems to ask:
"doesn't JITT always make sense?" My belief is that no, it does not always make sense. Some
things take a longer time to learn and JITT is not appropriate for them. I realize Kent didn't say
"always", but it seemed to be implied.
You did put words in my mouth. Perhaps that's because of my strong-held opinions, coming through.
But, I didn't say ALWAYS. I agree that JITT doesn't always make sense, nor does exploratory learning,
discourse, Socratic dialogue, learning laboratories, nor other concepts in or out of vogue. But I'll
definitely say FREQUENTLY and perhaps OFTEN. Or, perhaps it's just perspective as a trainer coming
through again. One of the best distinctions I've ever heard regarding the difference between training and
education goes something like "Training is for an immediate, defined need; education is for a future,
perceived need." I regret that I don't remember the source!
I think EPSSs are great, but I don't consider them a subset of JITT at all. As I said in my original
piece, I prefer to see them for review or reference, not initial training. Now, in keeping with my
previous paragraph I will amend that a little. If what is to be learned is simple and CAN be
learned easily and rapidly, than an EPSS for JITT might be reasonable. But for more complex
skills or knowledge, and especially when the consequence of error are severe, I prefer more
thorough instruction, distributed practice, and an EPSS for review and reference on the job.
What is a typical EPSS? As I said earlier, I haven't seen one yet. But, I think you're limiting the concept
if you look at an EPSS as only for reference or review. They can support a JITT concept. Designed
accordingly, they can offer an introductory training experience (tutorials), job aiding or scaffolding as
the learner begins applying and practicing the new skill/information in a "real-world" environment, and
reference or review if they "get stuck." This requires both a structured access method and a random
access method to essentially the same content, perhaps with enough transitional "glue" to provide a
cohesive experience.
>CASE IN POINT: In introducing new software products, we've met with considerable success using
fairly simple EPSSs (using the Windows Help compiler, plus an authoring system) that combine contextsensitive
help, cue cards (i.e., job aids), and tutorials in addition to "company-specific" reference
information. Each of these primary elements is available through a menu structure (providing a cohesive
training experience, user's guide, reference guide, and job aids) for a structured view, in addition to
being accessible as a context-sensitive "jump" from the specific location (context) in the software. I'll
admit that these systems are likely not as effective or as efficient as a concentrated, day-long, hands-on
training session. Let's look at the following example ("sanitized" to maintain client confidentiality). We
were replacing a custom-designed DOS system used by over 20,000 people daily throughout the U.S. (in

an industry with an annual employee turnover rate of between 25-40%), with a Windows system
(including significantly expanded functionality). For the DOS system, we developed classroom training
materials (very effective, by the way) and the client (a franchiser) made the one-day classes available to
the users at the cost of only $75 per seat, while the client "picked up" a direct expense of over $200 per
class seat (not counting travel and per diem). Out of potentially 20,000 students (i.e., users) less than
2,000 ever attended training, or less than one out of ten. When surveyed, the reasons for non-attendance
were primarily: (a) being away from the workplace--they're salespeople, and (2) the "hidden costs" of
travel. When the client asked for training recommendations for the Windows system, I recommended an
EPSS as described above, to make the training available to the user in their workplace, at their
convenience, as needed. When asked (on the spot) what one would cost, I replied "about the same cost
as 500 class seats (above) if you add in the costs of round-trip airline tickets, per diem, their salary and
lost opportunities from being away from the job." He essentially "signed on the spot..." Then, he began
to get concerned, so he had us do all the curriculum development work for a new one-day hands-on
class. After about eight months in field, we've had less than 500 user requests for the class, while they
are so pleased with the EPSS that we're getting many unsolicited testimonials, and have used these
testimonials to "sell" six additional EPSSs.
For another client, we're using a computerized test that measures mastery of the material in the EPSS as
a prerequisite for attending an advanced class seminar. Would I recommend an EPSS (or CBT, or
classroom, or JITT, or distance learning, or videotape, etc.) for every client and every training
requirement. No! However, I also categorically do not "refute" the place that any of them have in my
"arsenal." I think Steve, perhaps in oversimplification to make a point, may be categorically refuting
JITT. Or, is he just lamenting the conditions that are causing it to become so popular? I'm not sure!

11 Mar 96
Janet E Jacobson
During IBM's "buyout's" in 1991-1993, many employees had to sign an agreement not to work for the
competition, as a condition for receiving certain types of benefits. I was one who fell into this category.
My "buyout contract" also specifies that I must have IBM's approval on any job that I take. The penalty
is repaying the severance benefits and loosing certain aspects of the sweetened early retirement package
I must take in 2001.
Companies CANNOT afford to train people who may be future competitors. "On the job training" is
being considered a performance reward in many firms. There are so many people in the job market now
competing for so few jobs that many employers prefer hiring people with the skill rather than paying for
training. There are no "jobs for life" anymore at any company.
What I find interesting is that the public education system in Iowa has similar concerns. For years, they
have provided excellent public schools only to find their "best and brightest" moving to other states. All
my in-laws were educated in Iowa in the '50's and '60's. Not one is still living there. Most of their
friends, many "professionals," live in other states.

15 Mar 96
Henryk R. Marcinkiewicz
I would like to comment on just two points raised in Steve Alessi's monograph. First, regarding the
"Coming Crisis," I would like to say that I agree that I hope that we don't lose the need for reading and
writing abilities. I wonder though, if that will ever happen if it remains true that the way in which the
brain processes information requires reflection and limited amounts of information at a given moment.
Sir Francis Bacon suggested that reading makes one full [of information]. Supposedly, that happens by a
person's reflection. If the world skipped over reading, then yes a crisis would result.
Interestingly, Nicholas Negroponte wrote in Being Digital that a reason he published a "paper" book
was that he relished reflection even while he hated to read.
Relatedly, Peter Huber, writing in Forbes magazine, "The Medium Is Not the Message" (July 5, 1993)
suggested that "...the message will be defined not by paper, screen, tablet or loudspeaker, not by
FORTRAN, French or Farsi, but by the words of your lips and meditations of your heart." It reads to me
that the outcome of his description can only be accomplished by some sort of reflection. Perhaps, new
media will obviate the need for reading but not reflection.
Concerning Cooperation and Technology
Perhaps one problem in integrating cooperative learning with computer technology is that only one
person can be at an input device at a time--two with a SEGA. However, my colleague, Brian Carlson, at
Dakota State University (bmc@alpha.dsu.edu) and I come across a board that allows up to 128 input
devices to a microcomputer. No longer is a mainframe necessary for group activities. Unfortunately, this
little piece of hardware is not widely known of or used. One institute, James Madison University uses it
for testing in lecture halls.
What Brian and I found though was that designing instruction to be used on this device was a challenge.
Eventually, we determined to design for collaborative classroom management settings.
Henryk Marcinkiewicz
University of South Dakota
Vermillion, SD
E-mail: hmarcink@charlie.usd.edu

15 Mar 96
Bob Cassidy
[quoting Marcinkiewicz, 15 Mar 96] Perhaps one problem in integrating cooperative learning
with computer technology is that only one person can be at an input device at a time--two with a
SEGA. However, my colleague, Brian Carlson, at Dakota State University (bmc@alpha.dsu.edu)
and I come across a board that allows up to 128 input devices to a microcomputer. No longer is a
mainframe necessary for group activities. Unfortunately, this little piece of hardware is not widely
known of or used. One institute, James Madison University uses it for testing in lecture halls.
This sounds like the HyperGraphics system. I beta-tested one about 5 years ago and have seen it in use
at various institutions since that time. We were using it in a lecture hall where keypads at each seat were
connected to a standard MS-DOS machine at the front of the room. The micro output to an LCD
projector. Each lesson was presented by the computer and at the end of the presentation, multiple-choice
questions were presented. The students answered via the keypads and a bar graph was displayed
showing how many choose each answer. The instructor could also create his own questions.
Bob Cassidy
Somerton School District
215 N. Carlisle Ave
Somerton, AZ 85350
Phone: 602-627-9388
Fax: 602-627-8217
E-mail: bcassid@somertoneld.k12.az.us

18 Mar 96
Ernie Chang
Machines That Read and Write For You
The paradigm underlying the thesis here, adopted by others in the discussion, is that of the machine as
GOLEM--human-like in many aspects, with the threat of usurping or replacing us in one way or another.
A different view of the machine is that of enhancer, or potentiator, which makes the human more than
we could be without the machine. The machine as mechanical and process-enhancer is commonplace;
however, the computer as a cognitive enhancer is not.
Instead, then, of Alessi's view that machines that read and write will do so for the human cognitive
potato, consider that in five to ten years we could have computers that are so effective in enhancing
human cognitive and learning powers that anyone can learn, with such a machine, to read and write
fluently.
The discussion has taken the direction of: well, machines that read and write are not in the future, they're
here now, and what is the nature of learning going to be like if machines read, and what is learning-byhearing
like compared to learning-by-reading. This assumption that if we can do less, we will needs to
be challenged.
What, you might ask, is the likelihood in five to ten years of mind-enhancing machines that will
facilitate the increase of human cognitive powers? In 1983, the research facility that I started in
Computer Science at the University of Victoria was called The Laboratory for Computer Enhanced
Cognition. Alex Pentland at MIT's Media Lab has stated that his research goals are in the uses of the
computer to enhance human capability. I continue to work in this area, through the creation of
interactive learning systems based on this paradigm shift.
It seems to me that, following the notion that memes (ideas as viruses) guarantee that if you can think of
anything at all, someone else will have, or is right now, or soon will be, thinking of the same idea
independently, that computer enhanced cognition is the learning and education research opportunity
emergent. So no doubt, there are many others whose work will produce those real gains in human
cognitive capability that has been so elusive.
On Individualism versus Collectivism
The argument that Steve puts forward seems to consider individual learning and collective learning as
being in opposition, as approaches from which we must choose one or the other. He then goes on to state

that software does not support collaborative learning very well (as yet), and in fact, that educational
technologies develop systems which are the antithesis of the kind of interaction one might want in
collaborative learning.
However, these two concepts need not be seen as a binary polar model; they are, in my opinion,
orthogonal. First, for clarification, let's take "individual" learning in the sense of "being by myself"
learning. The best kinds of things to learn, being by myself, are the base concepts and relationships of a
subject: kinship models in anthropology, Newton's laws in physics, etc. Collaborative learning in the
sense of "being with others" is orthogonal to this in the sense that what others contribute is the exchange
of perspectives on applications of concepts, relative value systems, which enrich the individual's
knowledge as well as offering opportunities to sort out contusions or misunderstandings.
From this point of view, "being by myself" learning deals with the "fact base" (risky as this term is in a
deconstructivist age!), while "being with a group" deals with communications and value exchanges. The
appropriate computer tools MUST be different, the first being task or information based, and the second
being message based.
However, the two learning approaches are orthogonal and complementary in that having one does not
include or preclude having the other. In fact, strong arguments can be made for having both.
There is another sense of "individual" learning--the knowledge gained by a specific person, and its
corollary of "collaborative" learning--the knowledge gained by the group. As Merrill stated, only one
person is learning, as far as that individual is concerned, and that is true however many persons are
present. The other, the knowledge of a group, is more controversial--sociologists measure and consider
groups as entities, with their own specific behaviors, etc. This dimension of person-specific vs. groupspecific
is more troubling: in many group situations, the teacher, facilitator, instructor, deals with the
group as an entity, but its knowledge or behavior is not that of any specific individual. Here, the person
can become lost or missed by the facilitator because the "group" seems to be doing so well--20% of the
individuals asking and answering all the questions.
This dimension has its own research questions. If a group seems to be learning, is the non-participating
individual also learning (like secondary smoke effects)? For myself, I find the first set of meanings more
compelling--always dealing with individuals, in being-alone or being-with-others situations. This to me
is the proper domain of the use of the computer--in ensuring that the individual has a personal adaptive
environment that facilitates individual learning and information needs.
On Instructional Design as Art
Steve's relativistic acceptance of all instructional design models, and the creativity and artistry needed to
execute them, leads to his "need for authoring tools which truly foster evaluation and revision processes."
This is either a domain in its infancy, or one in which there is no (and may never have) guideline for

standards and value. Every process is a creative one, and every product is suspect and needs to be tested
before one can know if it is effective! I'm not against evaluation, but the effort of thorough evaluation of
every product is not practical or affordable.
Guidelines for building bridges or designing with transistors are based on established principles, and
building within those guidelines is less art and creativity than following rules (and malpractive if you
don't). There is an element of predictability in terms of process and outcome.
Art, on the other hand, is a process which is creative, for which there are no well-established guidelines
for what is "good" or "works." The leaders of the day direct trends, and they can be deconstructed. There
is no clear basis for evaluation.
Instructional Design may be art, but accepting that it is so is anathema to those in the system who need
to develop or convert the tremendous backlog of traditional material into more effective learning
products.
If it is not art, then we had better find those standard processes and outcome predictors, even at the cost
of converting artists into learning-engineers.
Ernie Chang
Learning Strategies
Axia Multimedia Corp
E-mail: echang@axia.com