21-nelson74-4web2

21. Computer Lib

/Dream Machines

1974

dialogue; with the computer composing sentences and

questions appropriately based on the student’s input and the

branching structure of the materials. Let us call such systems

SIC (Sequenced-Item Conversational) systems. 

These three premises are united. For there to be dialogue

means there must be underlying graph structure of

potential sequences around which dialogue may be

generated; for there to be potential sequences means

breakpoints, and hence items. 

Let us question each of the premises in turn.

1 Is dialogue pleasant or desirable? 

Compulsory interaction, whether with a talking machine or a

stereotyped human, is itself a put-down or condescension.

(Note that on superhighways there is often a line of cars

behind the automatic toll booths, even when the manned

ones are open.) Moreover, faked interaction can be an

annoyance. (Consider the green light at the automatic toll

booth that lights up with a “thank you.”) Moreover, dialogue

by simple systems tends to have a fake quality. It is by no

means obvious that phony dialogue with a machine will

please the student.

2 Is the item approach necessary? 

If the student were in control, he could move around in areas

of material, leaving each scene when he got what he wanted,

or found in unhelpful.

3 Are sequences necessary? 

Prearranged sequences become unnecessary if the student

can see what he has yet to learn, then pursue it. 

CAI: Unnecessary Complication

The general belief among practitioners is that materials for

computer-based teaching are extremely difficult to create, or

“program.” Because of possible item weakness and the great

variety of possible sequences within the web, extensive

experimentation and debugging are required. Each item must

be carefully proven; and the different sequences open to a

student must all be tested for their effectiveness. All possible

misunderstandings by a student need to be anticipated and

prevented in this web of sequences, which must be designed

for its coverage, correct order, and general effectiveness.

CAI: General Wrongfulness

Computers offer us the first real chance to let the human

mind grow to its full potential, as it cannot within the

stifling and insulting setting of existing school systems. Yet

most of the systems for computer-assisted instruction seem

to me to be perpetuating and endorsing much that is wrong,

even evil, in our present educational system. CAI in its

conventional form enlarges and extends the faults of the

American educational system itself. They are: 

• Conduciveness to boredom;

• The removal of opportunities for initiative;

• Gratuitous concerns, both social and administrative

(“subject,” “progress” in subject);

• Grades, which really reflect commitment level, anxiety, and

willingness to focus on core emphasis;

• Stereotyped and condescending treatment of the student

(the “Now-Johnny” box in the computer replacing the one

that sits before the class);

• The narrowing of curricula and available materials for

“results” at the expense of motivation and generalized

orientation;

• Destructive testing of a kind we would not permit on

delicate machinery; and,

• An overt of hidden emphasis on invidious ratings. (Ungraded

schools are nice—but how many units did you complete

today?)

There are of course improvements, for instance in the

effects of testing. In the tell-test, tell-test nattering of CAI,

the testing becomes merely an irritant, but one certainly not

likely to foster enthusiasm.

311

;

---

the

NEWMEDIA

READER

But Isn’t CAI ‘Scientific?’ 

Part of CAI’s mystique is based upon the idea that teaching

can become “scientific” in the light of modern research,

especially learning theory. It is understandable that

researchers should promote this view and that others should

fall for it.

Laymen do not understand, nor are they told, that

“learning theory” is an extremely technical, mathematically

oriented, description of the behavior of abstract and

idealized organisms learning non-unified things under

specific conditions of motivation and non-distraction.

Let us assume, politely, that learning theory is a full and

consistent body of knowledge. Because of its name, learning

theory has at least what we may call nominal relevance to

teaching; but real relevance is another matter. It may be

relevant as Newtonian equations are to shooting a good

game of pool: implicit but without practical bearing.

Because of the actual character of learning theory, and its

general remoteness from non-sterile conditions, actual

relevance to any particular type of application must still be

demonstrated. To postulate that the theory still applies in

diluted or shifted circumstances is a leap of faith. Human

beings are not, taken all together, very like the idealized

pigeons or rats of learning theory, and their motivations and

other circumstances are not easily controlled. Studies

concerned with rate of repetition and reinforcement are

scarcely relevant if the student hates or does not understand

what he is doing.

I do not mean to attack all CAI, or any teaching system

which is effective and gratifying. What I doubt is that SIC

systems for CAI will become more and more wonderful as

effort progresses, or that the goal of talking tutorial systems

is reachable and appropriate. And what I further suspect is

that we are building boredom systems that not only make

life duller but sap intellectual interest in the same old way.

Should Systems ‘Instruct?’

Drill-and-practice systems are definitely a good thing for the

acquisition of skills and response sets, an improvement over

workbooks and the like, furnishing both corrections and

adjustment. They are boring, but probably less so than the

usual materials. But the CAI enthusiasts seem to believe the

same conversationalized chunk techniques can be extended

to the realm of ideas, to systems that will tutor and chide,

and that this will provide the same sort of natural interest

provided by a live tutor’s instruction.

The conventional point of view in CAI claims that because

validation is so important, it is necessary to have a

standardized format of item, sequence and dialogue. This

justifies turning the endeavor into picky-work within items

and sequence complexes, with attendant curricular freeze,

and student inanition and boredom. This is entirely

premature. The variety of alternative systems for computer

teaching have not even begun to be explored. Should systems

“instruct” at all?

‘Responding Resources’ and ‘Hyper-Media’

At no previous time has it been possible to create learning

resources so responsive and interesting, or to give such free

play to the student’s initiative as we may now. We can now

build computer-based presentational wonderlands, where a

student (or other user) may browse and ramble through a

vast variety of writings, pictures and apparitions in magical

space, as well as rich data structures and facilities for

twiddling them. These we may call, collectively, “responding

21. Computer Lib

/Dream Machines

312

---