[quoting Oliver, 1 Apr 96] Meaningless tosh, of course.
Things have gotten dramatically better in the past few years, and only an extreme cynic would think otherwise. Are you truly unaware of the hundreds of millions of dollars savings, better performance, lower defect rates that major corporations have realized due to cheaper, more available computers with learning/training software, and better authoring tools? If so I will send you the references from Business Week, Newsweek, InfoWorld, as well as technical journals. But perhaps you were just trying to be entertaining. Normally I have a really good sense of humor. If I sound unamused perhaps it because I have just taken the red-eye to DC to continue to lobby the government (NSF, ARPA) for increasing funding to universities to do research on improved learning technologies. After 48 hours of no sleep working hard to get grant money into programs that may benefit the person who wrote this note, I hope you are as good at doing great learning research as you are at making cynical comments. I know, I know--cynicism is an art form.
[quoting Quinn, 1 Apr 96] ...the three "dimensions":
Now here is productive, thought-worthy material! Certainly these three "dimensions" can be improved. However, here is how we arrived at them. In analyzing many "failures" of learning technology, it was clear that failures could occur because some "stakeholder" was not satisfied with the technology. Learners might not want to use the system ("not engaging"--not enjoyable enough to use), Teachers/Parents might not want the learners to use the system ("not effective"--learners may want to use it, but it does not achieve its educational objectives), Developers might not want to build the systems ("not viable"--too expensive to build for adequate ROI). So the dimensions deal with stakeholder reactions to the learning technology. Nevertheless, all the points you raise seem like valid criticisms. However, I would suggest that the dimensions of collaborative systems, exploratory systems, constructivist systems, etc., really deal with different pedagogical approaches or learning architectures. I have a research report in the works that deals with this.
[quoting Thomas, 1 Apr 96] ...a total "swing" toward learner-centered education is a big mistake.
Precisely, there are many stakeholders with a vested interested in what the learning technology does, is about, etc. If you just please the learner (student) you have probably built an engaging system (like the examples in the special issue). Learner-centered is just one dimension to optimize, but does not mean the technology is a success--though failing to be learner-centered is probably the most basic mistake in many ways.
...we as practitioners desiring to consider ourselves professionals should not limit ourselves to any one theory, strategy, method, or technique. We should select what we think is most appropriate from as large a "tool kit" as possible.
I really enjoyed these comments, and your approach to balance effort of production with useful learning results. Right on! Check out: http://www.atg.apple.com/areas/EW_Groups/ to see how much I agree with you. We need a tool kit approach with many strategies.