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 two-edged 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.