<table><caption>Table2
Choices available to leaders considering the Internet Access Proposition</caption><thead><tr><td>Choice</td><td>Description, Observations and Vaule Judgement Type</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>• Not to connect to the Internet at all (all children are not best served by the connection, this is a universal rule that I could have imposed upon me)</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>• To connect to the Internet and impose behaviour rules on the students, with teacher supervision (dictur: this is imposing behavioural criteria that do not work, according to the observations. Judgemendoes not fit with the observations that behaviour contracts do not work in this case.</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>• To connect to the Internet and impose technological gatekeepers like Net Nanny to keep students from harm (dictum: this is imposing machines as surrogate ethical decision-makers, releasing leaders and students from making the right learning transaction choices - does not fit with the observations).</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>• Choices 2 and 3 combined.</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>• To connect to the Internet and empower learners to make ethical media choices by applying media literacy skills (a value judgment respecting students' right to access information and other people, a judgment that fits with our duty to act "in loco parentis" with a qualification that the students be educated in moral self-reflection to make the correct transaction decisions on their own).</td></tr></tbody></table>

If a school is already connected to the Internet, then the decision is one of choosing a method to plan for (and to mitigation) the potential hazards of inappropriate learner communications found in choices two through five. The authors choose option five because the observations show that options two and three are ineffective, option one robs students of exposure to access of educational opportunity and resources (conflicting with our duty to provide relevant world experiences for students in school). Option 1 is compelling, but not to connect to the world creates another discontinuity with the school/society context - a condition that we could not live with ourselves as administrators today. To answer the question: "Do I value children's access to people and information (via the Internet) as a valuable part of those children's education?" We answer "Yes", but such a value judgment depends on the principles - the underpinnings or fourth step in the Toulmin moral decision making process on our journey from the *is* to the *ought*.

## Section 4: Leader Commitment to Fundamental Principles

Kant said that a moral decision made by a rational, good-willed person, according to a set of (universal) principles constitutes both a valid decision and a moral decision (Kant in Ellington, 1983, p. 56). This absolute position is difficult for leaders in the education system today, immersed in contexts that do shift, but leader ethics should be stable. First, we review some conditions that might distract the practitioner from stable value based self-reflection. Influences on the decision maker and on
decision making processes include: the nature of our work; ethical influences inherent in our expectations; personal influences (our perceived role and motivation); internal influences and external influences (Walker, 1996, p. 276). We are asked to consider the learner, the community, our own values and our roles as a leader in the work of schools. It may be helpful to look at the problem first by deciding what roles we are reflecting by "way of seeing" when we make particular decisions (League of Educational Administrators and Directors of Saskatchewan, 1993, p. 5).

Understanding our role in the decision situation can help us make value judgments or act concert with our fundamental principles or beliefs. As leaders, we act in one or more of four key roles when we make decisions like this (Walker, 1993):

1. **Leader of Leaders:** The concept *ofprimus inter pares* (or first among equals) applies to an individual in this role. A leader in this role makes decisions that fit their internal value system and also sets an example (externally) for other people. The media literacy qualification (Section 5) was developed from the stance as an empowerment-provider, as opposed to this "example setting" role.

2. **Servant of Leaders:** Servants of leaders help to enable other people in their respective roles. Reproductive and transformative leaders act in this role most often. A leader in this role provides power to other leaders. It is within this role that the researchers make the decision to consider core commitments (the moral principle of "no harm", relevance, access to information for students).

3. **Advocate:** Speaking on behalf of other interests and other actors in a situation will identify a leader who is acting in this role. Advocacy of moral reasoning in leader decision-making plays a part in the writers' decision but the process is narrated as one process and not as an advocacy for the specific treatment.

4. **Steward of Resources:** Reporting, explaining and justifying are acts associated with a leader in this role. While issues of cost and technical concerns are the key issues for some leaders involved in Internet access decisions, they must also consider the importance of moral decisions that are best for all.

Walker (1997) states that leaders act from within an assumed role, according to a set of core principles or commitments. The integrity of our leadership depends on the consistency with which we rely on our principles within each role. When a resource or new form of discourse offers itself we must consider a resource that might "promise on-line treasures and wonders to those brave enough to dig them out" (Frazier, 1995, p. 27). As responsible leaders, we strive to be **just** and **relevant** to our organization. By reinforcing technology, one "reinforces" reality, and one's
chances of being just and right increase accordingly (Lyotard, 1984, p. 14.)

## The Principles

To identify our principles or warrants that have led us from an informed description of a situation (the Internet world and schools) to the conclusion (to connect our kids to the Internet) via our value judgments is an essential part of leadership. The writers have chosen to appeal to one value - *respect for learners' improved access* to other people and information in learning, and to our sense of *duty to provide a relevant experience for learners*. These values are in concert with the categorical imperative because we act as moral agents "in loco parentis" in education. We cannot isolate students from the realities of society today. But we equally value our *duty of care* principles, where we wish for *no harm* to come to our K-12 or higher education students. Particularly, the "no harm" principle is used in this instance as the foundation for a moral judgment leading to the media literacy solution.

### *The "No Harm" principle*

Regardless of other principles, we are concerned with the way immoral transactions can so easily occur on the Internet. Leaders who are caring act though their concern for the interests of others that transcends mere avoidance of harm to others and is characterized by kind, compassionate and generous interactions with and on behalf of others (Walker, 1993, p. 8).

In the view of the writers, it is only a matter of time until a student obtains information on the Internet that leads to a sensationally immoral and harmful act. Such a sorrowful event will have educational leaders scrambling for a solution or policy position to prevent the recurrence. If we guide students toward investigating information by personally critiquing both the subject of the media and the student's own values, perhaps we can lead them toward "more appropriate" decisions (Adams, 1989, p. 139). When we teach these critical thinking skills to learners so that they are applied in our absence when there is no momentary supervision or rule enforcement we are likely to give them a powerful tool for dealing with any inappropriate media encounter. This powerful skill set allows students to lead themselves out of harm's way more effectively than we can police or coerce student behaviour by rules. Can we achieve this goal through concurrently introducing media literacy and the Internet to learners?

## Section 5: Qualifications

While we can make the value judgments based on observations and research to connect our children to the Internet, we hold some principles that must also be addressed in reaching our conclusion, or the path from *is* to *ought*. These concomitant qualifications are the fifth and final step in reaching the conclusion. Observation of media literacy pedagogy reveals a different kind of solution to preventing inappropriate learner media choices that have historically been offered
by print and video media. The media literacy solution applies communication theory to student practice, without focusing on gatekeeping, by leading media consumers to become better “choosers” of what they consume. Media literacy theory asks teachers to “encourage students to explore their own sense of historical agency as they come to realize that everyday decisions and choices are not simply value ‘free’, nor are they a product of rational decisions alone” (McLaren, 1992, p. 2).

The media literacy approach is a normative ethical approach with a teleological orientation, a position that we take when we desire positive or ‘good’ outcomes (Rosen, 1993, p. 14). Our stance hopes for student encounters with immoral media to be productive. Learners ought to possess and choose to use critical thinking and self reflection skills to make the ‘good’ decision and to avoid the ‘bad’ stuff. If students obey our rules and “don’t go there” on the Internet, we can feel that we achieved our obligation. The moral decision in this paper is based on the duty that we wish a positive outcome from student-media interaction rather than a fulfilment of our own objectives as leader or teacher. The result is a more democratic learning environment where “...the shift of responsibility to the learner requires the focus to become, ‘Does the learner possess strategies for exploiting this material successfully?’” (Schwier, 1995, p. 123). How can we empower learners to make the right Internet transactions?

## Media Literacy

The Internet is a medium and as such it transports controversial information housed in the Internet world as electronic media (Bryant, 1992, p. 4). Teaching media literacy is not new and it is being taught in school systems to focus *learner criticism and understanding* about television, film, print and radio medium (Adams, 1989, p. 13). The Internet medium adds a new twist to mass media theory by being an interactive media meaning that we do not just see media pieces as they “roll by” as with television, but we actively and selectively retrieve it. Today, most media literacy pedagogy rests on the idea that students exist in society that is awash with propaganda and mediated messages: “Before quality assurance has been developed, the human race is being forced to swim in an electronic sea of ideas” (Adams, 1989, p. 7). We know too that learners construct meaning from what they “swim through:

> Since the media construct their own view of reality it is necessary for students to be able to read media text critically. This ability can make media a resource for students where the values and ideas represented are carefully examined as a normal part of reading, viewing and listening. (Schwier and Saskatoon School Board, 1994).

Methodologies for teaching media literacy vary but most teach critical consumerism and critical thinking concomitantly. One school division in western Canada uses the T.R.A.P. method to teach students media literacy (Schwier, 1994).
By looking at the program we see how media literacy skills support might prevent harm. Educators have already developed the skill teachings because of problems with “immoral” television, print and video. An explanation of the terms represented by the T.R.A.P. acronym follows with examples of some demonstrative teaching tactics to reduce harm when students encounter inappropriate media or communications.

"T" is for *Text*: Students learn the text or content of the media messages and test the source of the information for credibility. Is the source valid? Learners compare and contrast a particular message from more than one source. Free of an editing process, the Internet world *text* begs for critical review.

"R" is for *Representation*: Students are coached to understand what forces are behind the creation of the media. Learners are asked to choose the forces they "like". Why? With business exerting more of an advertising presence on the Internet, for example, understanding representation of messengers' motive is important.

"A" is for *Audience*: People have an effect on the media. Learners are asked to consider which culture was "targeted" by the messenger or media. Students compare the message to other messages delivered in different cultures. Cultural bias (without intent, many times) is in our view one of the Internet's weakest points as a medium. While learners can share cultures, they can very easily share counter-cultural morality if learners have not learned critical thought processes.

"P" is for *Production*: Students are informed that agencies and individuals actually create media copy. Learners are confronted with examples of the economic forces in play at the time of media production and are led to question who produced the copy. Is the producer a government institution, a private business or a Hollywood crew? Some Internet sites cost as much to produce as five story buildings.

As teachers, we act *in loco parentis* and we hold dear the principle that we should bring no harm to students. We act according to this principle when confronted with inappropriate television and video at school. Why can we not act accordingly with Internet media? The Internet begs leaders and teachers to offer the same care level of critiquing skills for all media. Media literacy theorists have learned a lot about the value of critiquing television messages. Voojis points out that once learners engage in critical thinking about the nature of violence, most of the "negative effects" of encountering a violent television program do not manifest in learner behaviour or attitude (Saskatoon Board of Education, 1993, p. 136).

A massive quantity of empirical studies on television and video media has been accumulated (Comstock, 1987, p. 2). For example, school children involved in media literacy come to understand the self-interest of advertisers as they grow older (Comstock, p. 33). Critical and creative thinking, Communication, personal and social skills and technological literacy are key components of the province of Saskatchewan's core curriculum making media literacy teaching a responsible act as well as a caring one. Kohlberg offers a normative ethical perspective on moral reasoning where he asserts: "... a person can be helped to achieve a 'higher' stage (of moral reasoning) by someone who has a higher level reasoning" (cited in Rosen,
1993, p. 91). Given that we *can* lead students to making moral decisions, we need to know something about three stages of student moral development defined in Kohlberg's developmental theory of Moral.

*Preconventional Level. (Stage One):* Most children operate here, where they make decisions to satisfy their own moral needs to avoid punishment. They make these decisions based on values that can be exposed by Socratic teaching methods. It is here that we suggest our first qualification within Toulmin's moral decision making process as it applies to the proposition. If we can not be sure that our Socratic methods are leading the child to an awareness of their individual values, we need to employ gatekeeping and supervision for these children during Internet transactions. This is an example of a-qualifier or exception to the conclusion to connect to the net which we reached based on our "no harm" principle. If the student can be harmed because they are not yet capable of knowing "good" values from "bad" values, then we suggest a deontological stance. We ought to provide structured, rule based care for them if they are in stage one or within grades lower than, say, Grade 5 unless we can determine the child's moral development stage.

*Conventional Level. (Stage Two):* At this stage, learners make decisions by considering the norms of one's group and family. The desire to meet the needs of the group exceed personal needs and Kohlberg suggests that most adults do not get beyond this stage. The "kid on your shoulder" principle has worked well with high school students and university labs where students are asked to view Internet sites as if a young child were watching. Students who are in stage two of development are aware that if they encounter something that a small child on their shoulder should not see, they stay away from the media on the Internet. The social norms of the family are brought to the moral consciousness of the student to prevent them from harming themselves.

*Postconventional Level. (Stage Three):* In stage three, the learner is more self-motivated toward decision making. The standard of what is right and wrong has been internalized in this student as a set of principles concerning the social good. These learners are autonomous because they think for themselves, beyond local custom. Kohlberg claims that people are operating within this stage when they consider the meta-ethical strategies and schema like that proposed in this article. We know that banning access to television in one location (a classroom or the home) does not prevent learners from watching the program at some other venue. Televisions, like Internet connected computers, exist both at school and at home. Critical thinking about the message conveyed by the media could provide students with the empowerment to make choices outside "policed" environments. Kohlberg responds: "through Socratic questioning, the values and principles held by children can be brought to consciousness" (Rosen, 1989, p. 41). If, for any reason, we cannot lead the students to know values of "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" during media encounters, the principle of duty of care override the "freedom of access" principles and we suggest that professionals then ought to act in a more authoritative manner to prevent harm.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Toulmin's Model Applied to the proposition</figcaption></figure>

Conclusion

We conclude that school leaders *ought* to connect our example K-12 school to the Internet. After reviewing the context of schools and Internet content we observe that some Internet material *is* inappropriate, particularly graphic advertisements and electronic mail functions that allow unregulated person-to-person discourse. After we investigated the Internet situation we concluded that while students should have the freedom for broad social interaction, what the Internet *is* might not be exactly where our school *ought* to, be if we consider the harm possible to children. We provided value judgments about the net content, student critical thinking capability and our own duties as teachers and administrators, acting in loco parentis. We looked more closely at the principles underpinning those value judgments to assure integrity-to agree that these principles are not likely to change. Principles of respect for students and their rights to relevant education are “pros” for Internet connection, while our duty of care or “no harm” principle is a “con” for the proposition. This article suggests that leadership mediates the “cons” of Internet connection by educating learners about media literacy and developing self-reflective techniques so that our if learners are empowered to reach beyond stage one of Kohlberg’s moral development capacity. We would also emphasize another qualifier: that children who have not reached beyond stage one need constant, effective supervision during Internet transactions until the problems of immoral Internet transactions are alleviated from schools.

In summary, our case of a leader moral decision is made by stating the outcome desired (the proposition), making value judgments based on observations, reviewing the principles behind those judgments and suggesting qualifiers to the judgments
where necessary to the exercise of ethical technology leadership (Brown, 1990, p. 48). The result is a demonstration of a critical moral reasoning process for school leaders, educational technology leaders and for classroom teachers to think about the discourse possible between their students and the Internet world.

References

Adams, D.M. (1989). *Media and literacy: Learning in an electronic age*. Springfield: Illinois. Charles Thomas Publishers.

Beaudrilliard, J. (1984). The precession of simulacra. In D. Hlynka and Belland, J. (Eds.) *Paradigms Regained*, (pp. 441-481). Englewood Cliffs: NJ. Educational Technology Publications.

Bryant, J. (1992). *Introduction to mass communication* (3rd Ed.). Dubuque: Iowa. Wm C. Brown.

Brown, M.T. (1991). *Working ethics*. San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Carpenter, C. (1996). On-line Ethics: What's a Teacher To Do? *Learning and Leading with Technology*. 23(1), 40-43.

Churchland, P. (1996, November). Thinking about Thinking. *Wired*. Wired Publishing.

Crossman, D.M., (1995). The Internet in higher education. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), *Instructional Technology*, (pp. 263-273). Englewood: CO. Libraries Unlimited.

Elmer-Dewitt, P. (1995) On a screen near you: Cyberporn. *Time*. (I), 146

Frazier, M. K. (1995) Caution: Students on board the Internet. *Educational Leadership*. (7) 52, 26-27.

Gooderham, M., (1996) Cocooning the young from web hazards. *The Globe and Mail*. November 26, A8.

Harris, J., (1994). People to people projects on the Internet. *The Computing Teacher*. 21 (2) 48-52.

Harris, J. (1995). Information Collections. *The Computing Teacher*. 22(4), 43-48.

Harris, J. (1995). Collaborative Projects on the Internet. *The Computing Teacher*. 22 (5) 60-64.

Jackson, G. A. (1994). Promoting Civility on the Academic Network: Crime & Punishment, or the Golden Rule? *Educational Record*. 75(3), 29-39.

Hoffman, J., (1996). Managing the Information Highway. Precis. (3) 1,2.

Kowch, G. and Schwier, R., (1997). *Creating Learning Communities: Internet Video Teleconferencing Possibilities*. Paper presented at the National Congress on Rural Education, Saskatoon: SK.

League of Educational Administrators of Saskatchewan. (1993, November). *Educational Leadership in Saskatchewan: a L.E.A.D.S. position paper*. Regina, Saskatchewan: Walker.

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). *The Post Modern Condition*. “Trans.,” G. Bennington and B. Massumit. Minneapolis: MN. University of Minnesota Press.

Markoff, J. (1994). The fourth law of robotics. *EDUCOM Review*. 29(2), 45-46.
McLaren, P. (1992). Media knowledges, warrior citizenry and postmodern literacies. *Rethinking Media Literacy*. New York: NY. Lang Publishers.

Rosen, B., (1993). *Ethical Theory*. Mountain View: CA. Mayfield Publishing Co.

Saskatoon Board of Education. (1994). *Media literacy guidelines*. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan: Author.

Schwier, R. A., and Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). *Interactive multimedia instruction*. Englewood Cliffs: NJ. Educational Technology Publications.

Saskatchewan Education Training and Employment. (1994). *Saskatchewan education indicators report*. Regina: SK. Author.

Saskatchewan Education Training and Employment, (1996). *Saskatchewan education indicators: Kindergarten to grade 12: 1996 update*. Regina: SK. Author.

Toulmin, S. E. (1957). *An introduction to reasoning*. New York: NY. MacMillan.

Walker, K. (1993). Striving for integrity in educational policy making: An ethical metaphor. *McGill Journal of Education*. 28 (1) 77-95.

Walker, K. W. (1996). A blushing romance: Framework for and ethical exposition of a relationship between educational and commercial interests. *Unpublished*. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan.

## AUTHOR

Eugene is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Educational Administration
University of Saskatchewan

Keith Walker is an Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration
University of Saskatchewan
Book Reviews

Diane Janes, Editor

***Critical Issues in Qualitative Research*** by Janice Morse (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. ISBN 0-8039-5043-8,395 pages, $26.95 (US)

Reviewed by Mary F. Kennedy

This book was meant to supplement and complement ***Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue.*** However its application is neither limited to those in the nursing profession, nor to supplementary reading status. It is a stand-alone reference and an important addition to the shelves of all qualitative researchers.

***Critical Issues in Qualitative Research*** targets the issue of quality in qualitative research. The book is a series of papers - the result of a two day think tank, in which participants prepared and circulated papers beforehand. Papers were then discussed and debated. Review and revision incorporated points raised, and the resulting papers are the sum of the group's thinking. Each chapter contains a paper preceded by a dialogue out-take, which is a portion of the think tank discussion.

There are 19 chapters covering broad-ranging issues: methodology, interpretation, phenomenological knowing, ethnography, mentoring in qualitative research, post-structuralism, collaboration, ethics, and academic integrity. These and other issues are dealt with on a theoretical, rather than a practical level, but the research experiences of the various authors inform their understanding.

The initial papers deal with the status of qualitative research. This still seems to be an issue in the health professions, where the long history and supremacy of scientific/experimental research has resulted in a stigma against qualitative research - a stigma that Morse, as contributing editor, feels is not totally undeserving. Qualitative researchers are sometimes guilty of not explaining clearly what they do and how conclusions are reached. In fact Kathryn May, in Chapter 2, argues for the *magic* element - "rigorous implementation and explication of method alone never explains the process of abstract knowing" (p. 13).

Morse herself focuses on the cognitive processes of analysis - the synthesis that leads to aggregation of categories, linkages between them, and the process of falsification and confirmation - usually "a myster to all but the qualitative researchers" (p. 24). She blames qualitative researchers for not making explicit
their cognitive struggle of model or theory construction, claiming that this oversight has led to the belief that qualitative research is both easy and unscientific. She delineates the four cognitive processes integral to all qualitative research comprehending, synthesizing, theorizing, and recontextualizing. While clearly delineating the cognitive processes involved in doing qualitative research, there is nothing within the four processes that hasn't already been said by Cuba and Lincoln in past texts.

The book argues for generalizability of results through recontextualizing the development of emerging theory that is applicable to other settings and other populations. The goal of qualitative research is to place the results in the context of established knowledge, and to claim new contributions. This is an acceptable goal, but the issue of generalization is still a thorny one for qualitative researchers, with no agreement as yet. Some would disagree with Morse, claiming that context specificity, or particular-case knowing is an end in itself, and that the only generalization possible is through meta-analysis of whole series of studies.

*Critical Issues in Qualitative Research* contains one of the most enlightened discussions of grounded theory in practice that I have read. Chapter 11 by Stern points to the confusion over the interpretation of Glaser and Strauss' original work, and the erosion of the idea by novice researchers and by those who mentor them, many of whom have never read the original work. The point is made, however, that Glaser and Strauss discovered grounded theory in their own efforts to understand their data - in the act of interpretation. Maybe each researcher arrives at his/her discovery uniquely, without formula.

I have been a qualitative researcher for fifteen years, and I have taught qualitative research and evaluation methods for over a decade. I have numerous books on qualitative research, and have studied them all assiduously. I had thought that I would not need to add to my repertoire. But Morse's book has become one of my favorites, and I am convinced that it is a must for all qualitative researchers. And while it is not for the novice, it should be essential reading for graduate students who are contemplating doing a qualitative thesis. I trust the numbers of educational technologists undertaking qualitative studies will continue to grow. It is a fascinating path to the truth - to someone's truth.

Dr. Mary F. Kennedy is an educational consultant and part-time faculty member living in Victoria. She continues to be qualitative, and to do research, even in semi-retirement.
*Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online,*

Linda Harasim, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, Lucio Teles and Murray Turoff. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-262-08236-5, 329 pp., $35.00 (US)

Reviewed by Jean-Marc Guillemette

If you are interested in using computers and communication technologies in your courses, seminars or workshops, but don't really know what's involved or how to go about it, then start with this book. It provides an up-to-date description and discussion of the terms, concepts and issues related to learning networks. In the authors' words, 'learning networks are groups of people who use [ComputerManaged Communication] networks to learn together at the time, place and pace that best suits them and is appropriate to the task'. In short, the book deals with organizing and presenting courses online.

It is divided into three parts regrouping a total of eleven chapters. Part 1, The Field, includes three chapters that create a framework for understanding learning networks, both by defining key terms and concepts, and by providing examples of some of the current or recent projects. Chapter 1 focuses on fundamental terminology and concepts, and sets the stage for more detailed discussions in subsequent chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 respectively, review projects carried out for K-12 education and then for higher education/professional development. While the authors describe rather than critique the projects, the reader can gain valuable insights from lessons learned in these projects.

Part 2, The Guide, is a more practical, 'how-to' description of developing and implementing learning networks. Chapter 4 starts by describing seven learning approaches that 'are common in educational computer networks': 'electures', ask-an expert, mentorship, tutor support, access to relevant information (e.g., databases), peer interaction and structured group activities. The remainder of the chapter highlights the issues to consider when conceptualizing the networked learning environment, including the use of on-line conferences and metaphors intended to help students unfamiliar with this approach make the transition from conventional classroom environments to an electronic environment.

Chapter 5 provides guidance on getting started with implementing a network learning system. Chapter 6 offers a series of suggestions on how to organize teaching on-line. The need to change one's concept of teaching, from the passing of information to moderating and encouraging interaction between students who assume greater responsibility for their learning, is emphasized. Chapter 7 goes on to explore the student's point of view, and in particular what students need to succeed with online learning. Four factors (access, attitudes, motivation and regular use) that contribute to student success are discussed, complemented with a series of good suggestions to help students get the most out of learning online. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 each end with a convenient 'Checklist for Actions' that summarizes the chapter's main points. These checklists are likely to become quick references for
those working on their own projects. The final chapter of Part 2, Chapter 8, takes a candid look at what may go wrong with learning network projects and how to deal with various problems.

Part 3, 'The Future' is a combination summary, review and look ahead. Many of the points already introduced in previous chapters are repeated, at the risk of being overstated. The authors, however, are quite convincing in suggesting that learning networks are here to stay and that they will replace many of the learning activities we currently take for granted. In particular, Chapter 11, The Epilogue, is a list of e-mail messages that highlight how the concepts and practices of learning networks are already creating changes around us. The eleven chapters are complemented with a series of seven appendices that provide additional and useful information on services online (e.g., commercial services, online resources, sample course descriptions, etc.).

The tone and style of the book are pleasant, thus making the book easy to read. Technical terms that may be new to some readers are well defined and explained, and often illustrated with examples. The book is therefore quite 'readable' for newcomers to the field without becoming over-simplified. It does live up to its title of 'field guide': concepts are generally well described using examples from actual projects, with both positive and negative aspects receiving equal treatment. There are also many practical suggestions of what to do, what not to do and how to avoid problems.

On the minus side, a number of key issues in computer-mediated communication, particularly when such communication reaches across countries and cultures, are not addressed in this book. In particular, little is said about how interaction between teacher and students, or how the design of learning materials distributed online must take into account factors such as learning styles and cultural differences. From this point of view, this is not an instructional design book (nor do the authors claim it to be). Also, while repetition has long been known to contribute to learning, there are times when too much repetition from chapter to chapter takes away some of the reading enjoyment. Certain points in particular (e.g., why learning networks promote active learning, or how using students to grade the work of other students can be beneficial) are discussed in different chapters creating an uneasy feeling of deja vu. While these may be key concepts, the repetition sometimes borders on overkill.

Nevertheless, the book remains, in my opinion, a 'must read' item for anyone wishing to become acquainted with learning networks or wanting to review what is currently happening in this field.

REVIEWER

Jean-Marc Guillemette is a training consultant and a student in the Ph.D. (Educational Technology) programme at Concordia University in Montreal.
Microwave Review

L. F. (Len) Proctor Editor

First Class V2.6 by SoftArc Inc., Markham, Ontario

Reviewed by Earl Misanchuk

Communication is the very essence of teaching and learning, but the vagaries of distance education make effective communication difficult to achieve. Various - media from humble print to sophisticated two-way audio-video have been employed in attempts to ameliorate the devastation that distance imposes, with varying degrees of success. One of the most recent contenders in the contest is computer conferencing, which provides an asynchronous means of discussion that is difficult to achieve any other way. Essentially, computer conferencing can be viewed as a souped up form of electronic mail that provides functionality and permits activities that regular e-mail does not.

FirstClass 2.6 by SoftArc Inc. of Markham, Ontario is a combination package of bulletin board/electronic mail/computer conferencing software that is increasingly being adopted by distance education institutions around the world as a primary delivery and communication medium. However, FirstClass is very useful aside from its application in distance education it can be used equally well as an adjunct for on-campus instruction, as well as a surrogate for face-to-face meetings among work groups (students and teachers alike). Our work group has found, for example, that a good deal of the business and discussion that takes place in face-to-face meetings can be done in a FirstClass conference, with consequent decreased frequency of meetings. When meetings do take place, they can be conducted more efficiently, since background information will have been distributed beforehand on FirstClass. Furthermore, discussions that take place on FirstClass tend to be of better quality, since the asynchronicity provides an opportunity for more reflective discussion. FirstClass features a graphical user interface (GUI) which is quite intuitive (with a few exceptions) and is common to both Macintosh and Windows users, making it easy to teach new users about the environment regardless of the hardware they use. A non-GUI command-line interface is also optionally available for situations that involve dumb terminals or other non-Mac or non-Windows platforms. Client software, while copyrighted, can be freely distributed to any and all users; only the server software is licensed.
The server software can run on virtually any Macintosh or Windows NT machine, but smaller capacity machines may limit the number of simultaneous users possible. For example, the server software will run on a Mac Plus and would probably be adequate in that configuration for a work group of several dozen users, provided they did not need to all be on-line simultaneously. Larger groups, of course, would require more computing horsepower. Server software is offered on a fee schedule that depends upon the number of users, in increments of 5, 10,25,50, 100,250,500, or 1,000 users (in addition to the five users allocated to the basic server license). The whole licensing fee schedule is modular: remote (telecom) users can be licensed separately from regular, local-area network users (and cost substantially less per user than the latter). Macintosh server software can have an optional Windows user module and Windows NT server software can have an optional Macintosh user module; both can have optional command line user interface modules. AppleTalk, IPX, and TCP/IP modules are available, as are Internet gateway software, allowing you to customize FirstClass for your environment without paying for capabilities you don't want or need. Discounts for educational institutions provide substantial savings over corporate licenses.

The way in which FirstClass deals with users names is so rational and human-like it may confuse users who are accustomed to less sophisticated e-mail systems. Although each user must have a unique UserID, only the individual user and the system administrator need be concerned with what that UserID is. Other users simply address each other using their normal (human) names. Indeed FirstClass is so smart that it will recognize individual users given only portions of their (real) names (although it won't necessarily recognize portions of their UserIDs). For example, Jonathan Barson's UserID may be something as arcane as JB123 or something as reasonable as Jonathan Barson, but for the sake of this example, let's pretend it is the former. Only Jonathan need remember what his UserID is, because he needs it to log on; other users will address him as Jonathan Barson. But they don't need to know exactly what Jonathan's name is they need only type in, say, Bar and hit Return, and FirstClass will pattern match all users with that string in their (real) names, perhaps yielding a menu of users (from which Jonathan's name may be selected) that includes Barbara Simons, Jonathan Barson, and Sara Baron. Alternatively, they could type in jon (capitalization is unimportant) and hit Return, with similar results (i.e., a menu of names of all users who have those three letters in their names).

FirstClass also provides for users' resumes, which can shed light on individuals who may share similar names. Resumes can even include a picture. Also available are a directory, which lists the (human) names of all users registered on the system (unless they are specifically excluded by the administrator), and a listing of whomever is on-line at the time.

offers virtually all the standard e-mail features one might expect, plus a number one might not. Creating, sending, and receiving an e-mail document is straightforward, employing all the normal menus and commands one might
expect in a Macintosh or Windows environment. Messages can include mixtures
of different fonts, sizes, styles, and colours of text, and can be assigned various
levels of priority (normal, urgent, bulk) and sensitivity (normal, personal, private,
company). Messages can also be receipted. That is, when you send a message
with receipting turned on, you will receive a reply message indicating when one
of the following activities take your choice occurs: routing, delivery, or reading.
(No more excuses of I didn't receive your e-mail or I got it, but haven't read it
yet!). You can choose to suppress notices of non-delivery of outbound messages.
Sent messages can be "unsent" so that you can make that addition you always
think of after you've sent a message, or retract those angry words you wish later
you hadn't sent. A History feature allows you to view all transactions related to a
given message: when it was sent, when it was read by each individual to whom it
was sent, when it was replied to. A powerful search capability permits locating
messages by specifying text which appears in some combination of the subject or
file name, the sub-conference or folder name, the contents of documents, the names
of attached documents, the "From" field, or the "To" and "CC" fields. The seat
function makes it easier to find those messages that have been mis-filed or otherwise
lost. An auto-reply feature permits you to automatically reply to an incoming
message with "canned" text. For example, if you are away for a period of time,
you might set up an auto-reply message that tells people who send you messages
that you received their message but are away and will not be able to respond until
a specified date. Messages may also be forwarded automatically when they are
received. The ability to create forms of various kinds allows you to customize
what a message will look like. FirstClass comes with several forms (e.g., atelephone
message form that looks much like printed telephone message pads, several varieties
of e-mail message forms, a requisition form, a request for information form, and
several others) as well as the standalone software necessary to create custom forms
(e.g., questionnaires for electronic polling). The same software also permits you
to create custom settings files and splash screens, to further customize your
environment.

FirstClass makes it particularly easy to send documents to other users. To
attach a document to a FirstClass message, a single command evokes a standard
Mac or Windows "open file" window which permits locating the desired file by
clicking through the volume and folder structure normally used on that platform.
Once the desired file is thus identified, FirstClass automatically compacts and
binhexes (for Mac) or zips (for Windows) the file and sends it on its way. The
recipient is notified of an attachment by a small document icon in the message
header and needs merely to double-click that icon to cause to unpack
the document and place it on the desktop or wherever the recipient designates. If
the sender attaches, say, a Macintosh Microsoft Excel tile and sends it to a Windows
user, the document will automatically appear on the recipient's desktop as a Windows
Microsoft Excel file, complete with appropriate icon: All types of files (word
processing, page layout, spreadsheet, graphics, multimedia, etc.) can be attached,
the only requirement is that the recipient have software that can properly interpret
the file once received.

FirstClass is much more than an e-mail system, however. Its strength lies in the
ability to create and manage conferences containing individual messages and threads
(collections of messages all pertaining to a single topic or sub-topic). It is not really
overstatement to say that FirstClass permits an almost dizzying array of controls
over who can communicate with whom, and how, which greatly simplifies setting
up groups and sub-groups who are engaged in a particular discussion or conference.
Central to this administration is the notion of privilege groups, groups of users who
are granted certain powers. There are 17 different levels of permissions that can
be assigned to privilege groups: edit permissions, moderate, delete any item, create
folders and files, edit sent messages, edit documents and stationery, move and re-
size windows, approve items, delete items, view summary, search, send, open, create
sub-conferences, download, view permissions, and view history. Nine standard
combinations of those permissions allow easy designation of groups of those
permissions, resulting in privileges ranging from Disallowed (the user is not able to
open the conference at all), through Summary, Browser, Reader, Contributor,
Approver, Moderator, and Creator to Controller (whose powers are secondary
only to the system administrator's). Privilege groups are easy to create and modify,
and users may be assigned to more than one privilege group. By careful specification
of privileges to groups, the system administrator and those granted Controller status
can empower or limit users to varying degrees a boon in a teaching situation where
a teacher might want to create and dissolve sub-groups of students over time and
grant them differing degrees of access to certain resources or conferences. Typically,
for example, one would want to limit the ability to read and send messages in a
conference to only those members who should be part of the conference. FirstClass
makes it easy to do this, although it makes it equally easy for the administrator or
conference Controller to grant universal access as well. It is even possible to conceal
the very existence of a conference from users who are not members of that
conference.

Automatic threading of messages in a conference is also a valuable feature. To
understand how threading works, assume a conference involves one user initiating
a discussion about Topic A. Over the course of a few days, perhaps, other users
will reply to Topic A with their thoughts. At the same time, a second user may
initiate a discussion about Topic B, and yet another user may start Topic C. Since
users respond to these topics asynchronously, the incoming messages within that
conference will consist of a hodge-podge of messages relating to all three topics.
By starting to read the first message in Topic A (readily identifiable by the header
to the message), and using the threading feature, a user can skip from one message
about Topic A to the next message about 'I'opic A, then to the third, etc., without
having to invest time and energy in seeking out the correct path through the hodge-
podge of messages takes care of it all.

A chat feature permits real-time "conversations" between two or more users
who are logged onto the system simultaneously. Although fairly easy to use, the chat can be confusing if more than two people are involved.

Aliasing is supported to good advantage. For example, if a user accidentally deletes a folder representing the conference he is in, the administrator can create an alias of that conference and effectively re-subscribe that user to the conference.

Given all the strong points of FirstClass listed above, one should not assume there isn't room for improvement, however. There are several places where FirstClass needs work. FirstClass has generally poor administration tools for bulk creation of new users. While the current system works well, is easy and intuitive to use, and is even relatively quick at creating a single user, it performs poorly when many users have to be added (or deleted, for that matter) at once, as is usually the case in education, where classes or cohorts come and go. There is provision for bulk creation of users, but it is clunky and hard to manage. This aspect of FirstClass needs to be modernized. FirstClass seems to assume a relatively stable group of users, which is not typically the case in computer conferencing as an educational tool.

Maddeningly, there is no straightforward way to create an address book in FirstClass from existing address books used with other mail systems. One would think, that in this day and age, it should be possible to simply import, say, a tab-delimited text file to create the necessary address book entries. Unfortunately, FirstClass requires that you type in these addresses one at a time. Indeed, it is not even possible to paste in more than one name at a time, which is unforgivable.

The paste capability is erratic in its operation in other areas of the interface, as well sometimes it works as expected, and sometimes it doesn't. This erratic behaviour of the clipboard seems to be exacerbated by moving between FirstClass and other applications. Furthermore, there seems to be an unreasonably small limit on the number of characters that can be pasted at one time. Attempting to copy a multi-page text document and paste it into a FirstClass message is almost guaranteed to lock up your computer, necessitating a re-start.

Another shortcoming of FirstClass is the lack of an automatic digesting capability. A digest is simply a compilation of many messages, usually relating to one another. For educational conferencing, it would be invaluable to be able to automatically prepare a single document containing all the messages relating to one topic (i.e., a document which is the product of working through the auto-thread capability). Such a digest should contain the usual header information (who sent it, and when, etc.) as well as the body of the message. Unfortunately, if one wants digests of threads in FirstClass, one must create them manually, a tedious project at best.

FirstClass allows the user to adjust the font, size, style, and colour of text in a message, but again maddeningly not to set a default preference for any of those characteristics. Worse yet, the creators of FirstClass have chosen to use 9-point Geneva (on the Mac) as the default display. Obviously, this size of text is far too small to be comfortably read by most users (even those without bifocals!), and
having to manually adjust message text for each item gives plenty of opportunity to speculate on the question "What in the world were they thinking about when they wrote this program?" For having done so many things right with FirstClass, the creators certainly blew it on this point. The next generation of client software will supposedly rectify this oversight, according to SoftArc.

The lack of integration of FirstClass with the World-Wide Web is another shortcoming that one hopes will be rectified sooner rather than later.

Finally, the documentation that accompanies FirstClass is not all that good. It certainly isn't the worst I've seen, but it would be helped immensely by including a few examples of how certain features could be usefully applied, particularly in the area of creating and managing conferences. The current documentation is also too business-oriented to be of much use to educators; perhaps a companion volume of documentation could be developed for educational applications.

Overall, however, FirstClass is several steps ahead of competitors aimed at the educational conferencing market. Given the advantages listed above, as well as the modular licensing scheme and favourable educational discounts, FirstClass is well worth serious consideration if you anticipate becoming involved in computer conferencing for education.

Earl R. Misanchuk is Professor of Extension & Community Relations at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

mPOWER is available from Mindscape Inc., Post Office Box 54984, Santa Clara, CA 95056-0984

Reviewed by L.F. (Len) Proctor

Recommended System Requirements:

Mac with 68040, 8MB RAM, System 7

At least 10 MB hard disk drive CD-ROM drive optional.

640 x 480 color monitor.

AV Macintosh or appropriate digitizing card.

## Software Description

mPower is a slide show package that features user friendly peripheral device control, multimedia integration and interactivity similar that found in several current CBI authoring tools. Assuming you have an A/V Macintosh or a Mac with a suitable digitizing card, still pictures and audio or video clips can be created without the help of additional editors. Audio and video segments can also be called from com-
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2:</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4:</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
After booting up the program, the opening menu (Figure 1) offers the option of creating, a new presentation, opening an existing program, deleting or renaming a previous program, selecting mPower options or entering the A/V controller. This is typical of the user interface for accessing all capabilities of the program. Clicking on the new presentation button brings up the second main menu (Figure 2) for creating the presentation and the function buttons. At this point, the author selects default options for the background for the slide, the transition to the next slide and how graphics loading will take place. These options will remain in effect until customized for individual slides. Clicking on the new slide button brings up the third main menu (Figure 3). This is where most of the action happens. Text is placed in the slide, along with graphics, sound, animation or charts. The order in which these are to appear on the screen is controlled by a queue. Editing the order in which the objects appear on the screen is as simple as click, hold and drag the object to a new place in the queue (Figure 4). At any point, the authors can elect to show the presentation and observe the results of their creative efforts. If the order in which slides appear on the screen needs to be changed click on where the slide is in the presentation, hold and drag it to where its new location.

The control mode is equally simple to use. For example, to capture a video clip from a video disc, select the add new video option from the slide creation menu, specify starting and ending frames, then create a quicktime movie and place it in the desired location on the slide. Other media formats can be captured and similarly imported into the presentation. Help files are available at appropriate points in the program. Special features like presenter notes and printing to video are also available in mPower.

## Documentation

The documentation accompanying the software is just over 100 pages in length Chapter I outlines basic system requirements, installation instructions for the program and offers a quick tour of the software. Chapters 2 & 3 offer guidance on how to create slides for presentations. Chapter 4 addresses the question of how to customize backgrounds, graphics, charts and audio/video objects. Animation and how to make the presentation interactive is also covered in this chapter. Chapters 5 & 6 are devoted to using advanced features like video compression and the AN controller.

## Critique and Recommendations

mPower was installed and tested on a PowerBook 180. and PowerMac 8500. In each case, the installation instructions were accurate and installation of the software with the installer program was uneventful.

While the software was usable on the PB 180, editing or showing a presentation of any size was painfully slow. Creating the same presentation on the PowerMac confirmed the need for taking advantage of all of the computer's available processing power. Large amounts of RAM memory and disk storage space are essential to
the reducing frustration when using of this software. Even when audio, video and picture files are compressed, modest presentations will quickly reach 15 to 20 Mb. in size. Simplicity, user friendliness and auto configuration for many types of hardware variations have all contributed to the size and speed of presentations created with this software.

The apparent simplicity and user friendliness of this software often mask its complexity. For example, all of the function buttons are presented at appropriate times during the editing process but the user is still left with the "clear if known" feeling. "Which one to start with" is still left to experience and user intuition.

The documentation reflects a similar approach. While each function of the software is described in a logical and systematic manner, there is an expectation that the user will have a fairly high level of computer literacy. The reference book approach to presenting the facts about a function frequently makes the explanation of the function hard to follow. Novice users, which are a major target group for this program, are likely to feel the need for a more detailed description. Parsimony, in this case, may have been misplaced.

The mPower tutorial on the CD is another case in point. It is not a tutorial, but rather a linear explanation of button functions littered with technical terms like eps and AIFF. Trial and error experimentation with the program is often just as fruitful as reading the documentation or watching the "tutorial".

Hardware and documentation concerns aside, mPower is an excellent multimedia presentation creation tool. The ease with which graphics, video and sound may be integrated into a slide or a series of slides in a "what you see is what you get" manner makes the program a joy to use. mPower's authors have made a concerted effort to help the user cope with hardware limitations and variation, and cross platform presentation needs. Several good multimedia sample files have been included on the CD for user experimentation and use in presentation creation. I look forward to future versions which hopefully will continue to minimize user concern with technical detail and allow them to focus on the more creative aspects of multimedia presentations.

<footnote>(Len) F. Proctor is a Professor in the Department of Curriculum Studies, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N OWO, E-mail: proctor@sask.usask.ca</footnote>
Index To Volume 25, 1996

Articles (by Title)

CJEC: *The Years* 1986 to 1989, Robert M. Bernard, Steven Shaw, 25(1), 13-18.

*The Effects of Interactive Images on Language Acquisition for Adults*, Farough Abed, 25(1), 53-62.

*From Magic Bullet to the Adaptive Learner*, Richard F. Lewis, 25(1), 3-6.

*The Last Word: From "Audiovisual Education" to "Information Technology,"* Denis Hlynka, 25(1), 7-11.

Media Technology Perspectives and Their Curriculum Implications for Media Education, Alice Yuet Lin Lee, 25(3), 209-234.

*Navigating Backward: Concrete vs Abstract Representation in Hypertext Buttons*. Elizabeth Boling, Kira S. King, Dale Evers, Yu-Chen Hsu, Jiunde Lee, Ted Frick, 25(2), 16 I-182.

*Television The Medium, The Message and Nutritional Health*, Laurie A. Wadsworth, 25(2), 137-160.

*Toulmin's Moral Reasoning Model Applied to Ethical Internet Choices: A Means for Exercising Ethical Technology Leadership*, Eugene Kowch, Keith Walker, 25(3), 235-254.

*The Use and Helpfulness of Components in a First Generation Multimedia System: A Study of Individual Differences*, Gordon Burt, 25(1), 37-52.

*WWW to Support Classroom Teaching*, Terry D. Anderson, Werner B. Joerg, 25 (1), 19-36.

Articles (by Author)

Abed, Farough, *The Effects of Interactive Images on Language Acquisition for Adults*, 25(1) 53-62.

Anderson, Terry D., WWW to Support Classroom Teaching, 25 (1) 19-36.

Bernard, Robert, CJEC: *The Years 1986 to 1989*,25(1), 13-18.

Boling, Elizabeth, *Navigating Backward: Concrete vs Abstract Representation in Hypertext Buttons*, 25(2), 16 1-182.

Burt, Gordon, *The Use and Helpfulness of Components in a First Generation Multimedia System: A Study of Individual Differences*, 25(1), 37-52.

Evers, Dale (see Boling, Elizabeth).
Frick, Ted (see Boling, Elizabeth). Hsu, Yu-Chen (see Boling, Elizabeth). Hlynka, Denis, *The Last Word: From 'Audiovisual Education" to "Information Technology,"* 25(1), 7-11. Joerg, Werner (see Anderson, Terry D.).

King, Kira S. (see Boling, Elizabeth).

Kowch, Eugene, *Toulmin's Moral Reasoning Model Applied to Ethical Internet Choices: A Means for Exercising Ethical Technology Leadership*, 25(3), 235-254.

Lee, Jiunde (see Boling, Elizabeth).

Lewis, Richard F., *From Magic Bullet to the Adaptive Learner*, 25(1), 3-6.

Steven Shaw, (see Bernard, Robert M.).

Wadsworth, Laurie A., *Television The Medium, The Message and Nutritional Health*, 25(2), 137-160.

Walker, Keith (see Kowch, Eugene).

Silver Anniversary Retrospective Articles (by Title)

*Effective Use of Computer Graphics in CAI: A Review of the Literature*, Gina Siliauskas, 197-208.

*Emancipative Educational Technology*, Gary Boyd, 179-186

*Is Research in New Technology Caught in the Same Old Trap*, Robert M. Bernard, reprinted from 15(3), 25(2), 75-80.

*The Future of Educational Technology*, Don Beckwith, reprinted from 17(1), 25(2), 89-110.

*The Future of Educational Technology is Past*, P. David Mitchell, reprinted from 18(1), 25(2), 111-136.

*High Definition Television: New Perceptual, Cognitive and Aesthetic Challenges*, Nikos Metallinos, 187-196.

*Theoretical Bases for Research in Media*, Gerald M. Thorkelson, reprinted from 16(1), 25(2), 81-88.

Microwave Reviews (by Title)

*First Class*, Reviewed by Earl R. Misanchuk, 25(3), 26 1-266.

*mPower*, Reviewed by L. F. (Len Proctor), 25(3), 267-272

*SoundEdit Pro*, Reviewed by Leonard F. Proctor, 25(1), 69-71

Book Reviews (by Title)

*Critical Issues in Qualitative Research*, by Janice Morse. Reviewed by Mary Kennedy, 25(3), 255-256.

*Learning Networks*, by Linda Harasim, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, Lucio Teles and Murray Turoff. Reviewed by Jean-Marc Guillemette, 25(3), 257-260.

*Software by Design: Creating People Friendly Software*, by Penny Bauersfeld. Reviewed by Dan Fontaine-O'Connell, 25(1), 64-66.

*Technology and Education Reform. The Reality Behind the Promise*, by Barbara Means. Reviewed by Modest Levira, 25(1), 63-64.

*Utilizing Multimedia Toolbook* 3.0, by Tom L. Hall. Reviewed by Brian D. Kerr, 25(1), 66-68.
## Information for Authors

CJEC welcomes papers on all aspects of educational technology and communication. Topics include, but are not limited to: media and computer applications in education, learning resource centres, communication and instruction theory, instructional design, simulation, gaming and other aspects of the use of technology in the learning process. These may take the form of reviews of literature, descriptions of approaches or procedures, descriptions of new applications, theoretical discussions and reports of research. Manuscripts may be submitted either in English or in French.

## Manuscript Categories

Manuscripts may fall into one of two classes: General, dealing with a topic or issue at a general level (although reference to specific instances or examples may be included), and Profiles, dealing with or describing only a specific instance of an approach, technique, program, project, etc. A Profile may be thought of as a descriptive case study. Most manuscripts dealing with a topic in general should include reference to supportive literature, while manuscripts submitted to the Profile category may or may not make such reference. The Editor reserves the right to change the designation of a manuscript or to make a designation, if none has been made previously by the author. Authors interested in determining the suitability of materials should consult past issues of CJEC or contact the Editor. All manuscripts received by the Editor (either general or profile) will be judged for suitability, contribution, accuracy, etc. by a panel of anonymous reviewers designated at the time of submission. Normally, the review process requires about eight weeks. There are no deadlines for the submission of manuscripts.

## Manuscript Preparation

Manuscripts should be printed on 8% x 11 inch ordinary white paper. All materials must be double-spaced, including quotations and references, include a title page on which appears the title of the manuscript, the full name of the author(s) along with position and institutional affiliation, mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the contact author. An abstract of 75-150 words should be placed on a separate sheet following the title page. While the title should appear at the top of the first manuscript page, no reference to the author(s) should appear there or any other place in the manuscript. Elements of style, including headings, tables, figures and references should be prepared according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 4th Edition, 1994. Figures must be camera ready.

## Submission of Manuscripts

Send four copies of the manuscript to the Editor along with a letter stating that the manuscript is original material that has not been published and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. If the manuscript contains copyright materials, the author should note this in the cover letter and indicate when letters of permission will be forwarded to the Editor. Manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to: David A. Mappin, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, Faculty of Education, 3-102 Education North, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G5. E-mail: David.Mappin@ualberta.ca