I'd like to be among the first to thank Steve [Draper, 29 Jul 96] for his long and thoughtful contribution to this thread. I think I'm as responsible as anyone for turning it into a cat fight as a summer diversion. (I sometimes get carried away by the image of poking a stick into a hornet's nest to see what will happen.)
I would hate to be classified as part of a group (particularly leader!) which holds firm and unshakable opinions on content versus process. Like Steve, I read the Clark, Kozma, Jonassen, Tenysson, etc., articles in Educational Technology Research & Development and found that the debate opened more questions than it purported to answer. My response has been to undertake a research project into university-level learning which addresses just those issues listed by Steve and articulated so well by Diana Laurillard. (One area of my investigation has been the use of PFnets to illuminate mental schemata and if anyone is doing the same thing I'd love to correspond with you away from the harsh sunlight of ITForum).
I've printed Steve's paper out and am in the process of using my hiliter and pencil on it and will possibly get around to a more considered response in a few days.
In the mean time I'd like to suggest to the moderators that Steve be invited to polish this up as a paper for the next season of ITForum.
By the way, we should all be grateful to Diana for coining the term "anathemagenic" (as opposed to Rothkopf's "mathemagenic") to describe educational activities which provoke loathing and disgust. ITForum will never enter this domain while such generous contributors as Steve are around.