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
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.