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 hand-held 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 advertising-culture 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?