CANADIAN JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Volume 25, Number 2, Summer 1996
ISSN 0710 - 4340

*Television The Medium, The Message, and
Nutritional Health*

Laurie A. Wadsworth, Ph. D.

*Navigation Backward: Concrete V.S. Abstract
Representation In Hypertext Buttons*

Elizabeth Boling

Dale Evers

Ted Frick

Kira S. King

Yu-Chen Hsu

An AMTEC Publication

25TH ANNIVERSARY
EDITORIAL BOARD

Farough Abed
Central Connecticut State
University

Terry Anderson
University of Alberta

Jon Baggaley
Athabasca University

Robert M Branch
University of Georgia

Katy Campbell
University of Alberta

W. Bruce Clark
University of Calgary

Dan Coldeway
Athabasca University

Denis Daigneault
Daigneault Multimedia

Thomas M. Duffy
Indiana University

Rodney S. Earle
Brigham Young University

D.J. Engel
University of Alberta

George L. Geis
OISE

Edward S Halpern
AT&T Bell Laboratories

Michael Hannafin
University of Georgia

Denis Hlynka
University of Manitoba

W. J. Hunter
University of Calgary

Robert Jones
Sheridan College of Applied
Arts and Technology

Lorne Koroluk
University of British Columbia

Richard Kenny
University of Ottawa

Richard F. Lewis
University of Windsor

William Milhelm
Penn State Great Valley

Earl R. Misanchuk
University of Saskatchewan

Ronald Owston
York University

Lauran Sandals
University of Calgary

Richard F. Schmid
Concordia University

Richard A. Schwier
University of Saskatchewan

Donna Sharon
Consultant, London, ON

Steven Shaw
Concordia University

Roland Viau
Universite de Sherbrooke

Clayton R. Wright
Grant MacEwan Community
College

AMTEC BOARD
OF DIRECTORS

President

Richard A. Schwier
University of Saskatchewan

Past President

Gary Karlsen
Magic Lantern Films

President Elect

Katy Campbell
University of Alberta

Secretary/Treasurer

Mary Anne Epp

Director

Maureen Baron

Membership

Genevieve Gallant
Cabot College
Canadian Journal of
Educational
Communication

Volume 25, Number 2
25TH Anniversary Issue
Summer, 1996

Editor

David A. Mappin

Mediaware Review Editor

Len F. Proctor

Book Review Editor

Diane P. Janes

Translation

Nadia Rousseau

Production Manager

Pat Mannion

Patrician Desktop Publishing

The Canadian Journal of Educational Communication is published by the Association for Media and technology in Education in Canada3- 1750 Th Queensway, Suite 13 18, Etobicoke, Ontario M9C 5H5; Attention: Ms. Mary Anne Epp, Secretary/Treasurer. Notification of address change should be sent to the above. All articles are copyright by AMTEC and may be reproduced for non-profit use without permission provided credit is given to CJEC. Back Issues of CJEC are $16.05 Canadian and may be obtained by contacting the Editor. CJEC is indexed in the Canadian Education Index and ERIC

This journal is published with the assistance of a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Articles

Editorial

David Mappin

Silver Anniversary Retrospectives

Is Research in New Technology Caught In the Same Old Trap

Robert M. Bernard

Theoretical Bases For Research In Media

G. M. Torkelson

The Future of Educational Technology

Don Beckwith

The Future of Educational Technology is Past

P. David Mitchell

Television The Medium, The Message and Nutritional Health

Laurie A. Wadsworth, Ph.D.

Navigating Backward: Concrete VS, Abstract Representation In

Hypertext Buttons

Elizabeth Boling

Kira S. King, Dale Evers

Yu-Chen Hsu, Jiunde Lee

Ted Frick,

Mediaware Review 183

All correspondence should be addressed to:

DAVID MAPPIN

Division of Technology in Education

3-1 02 Education North

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2GS

E-mail: David Mappin@Ualberta.ca

CJEC is typeset in MS Word 7

Printed by:Quebeccor Jasper Printing Inc.

Edmonton, AB
1996-97
Subscription/
Membership Form

AMTEC c/o Genevieve Gallant
3-1750 The Queensway, Suite 1818
Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada M9C 5H5

Name _______________ Title _________________________________

Address _________________________________

_______________________________

City _______________ Prov/Postal Code _________________________________

Phone(w) _______________ Phone(h) _________________________________

Fax _______________ Netmail _________________________________

_________________________________

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

I am willing to have pertinent information from the above included in the next Members Handbook

ALL RENEWALS COME DUE ON EITHER JANUARY 1ST OR JUNE 1ST.

If this is a renewal then please indicate your Membership Number

Student of Educational Technology (includes GST) _________________ $53.50

Retiree (includes GST) _________________________________ $53.50

Individual (includes GST) _________________________________ $101.65

Commercial (includes GST) _________________________________ $101.65

CJEC Subscription Only ■ Canada (includes GST) _________________US $80.25

CJEC Subscription Only ■ U.S.A.-- $75.00 ______________________ US $80.25

CJEC Subscription ■ Outside North America _________________ US $10 1.65

*Students must have this form signed by your Department Head _________________

GST# 122939853
# EDITORIAL

David Mappin

As we continue with our celebration of the silver anniversary of AMTEC's
primary publication, it seemed fitting to take a second look at some of the ideas
which CJEC has published on the field of instructional technology and on
research into it. As a representative sample of these issues we republish four
papers. The first two are on the subject of research into media and technology.
The first of these is by Robert Bernard, the editor who deserves kudos for
moving this journal into its current format and who is also a long time faculty
member at Concordia University. The second is by Gerald Thorkelson, who was
for many years an active scholar in the field based at the University of
Washington. In both these short pieces the criticisms of our general approaches
to our research work topics seem to me to have cogency a decade after they
were published.

The other two articles we have chosen to place before people again are,
perhaps, the two articles which sparked more discussion within AMTEC and the
Canadian media and technology community than any other. They are Don
Beckwith's article *The Future of Educational Technology* first published in
volume 17 (1) in 1988, and the retort by P. David Mitchell, *The Future of
Educational Technology is Past*, published in volume 18 (1) in 1989. It seems to
me that both of these are worth re-reading.

Not to remain contemplating the past for too long two new pieces of
scholarship round out this issue. The first of these by Laurie Wadsworth deals
with important aspects of television, nutrition, and health. The second by
Elizabeth Boling and her colleagues outlines an interesting avenue of possible
research regarding navigating in hypertext documents. I hope you find them
both interesting.
COMMENTARY

IS RESEARCH IN NEW TECHNOLOGY
CAUGHT IN THE SAME OLD TRAP?

Robert M. Bernard

First Published: Volume 15, No. 3, Summer 1986

Last week as I was basking in the leisure of the waning days of my sabbatical leave (in actual fact I was typing one of the articles that appears in this issue), a student came into my office with a question about a research design that he was analyzing. I won't go into the details of the question since it is irrelevant to the thrust of this argument. But the research question he was asking and his selection of variables brought to mind what I believe is one of the major conceptual errors that has plagues, and continues to plague, research in educational communication and technology. I will argue that the methodological contortions necessary to test the student's hypothesis are so cumbersome that the question should not be asked in the first place. Yet old lines of questioning persist, in spite of pleas from a variety of critics (Salomon & Clark, 1979; Clark, 1985; Salomon & Gardner, 1986). The student's research problem involved comparing mean differences of achievement among three independent variables (i.e., that class of variables that are considered to be under the control of the researcher). One of the variables was gender of the student (you guessed it, the levels were male and female). A second was type of content (language content versus mathematics content), and the third was method of delivery ("computer-based instruction" versus "traditional classroom instruction")*. The sample was comprised of male and female adolescents. To begin with, it is questionable whether such a design could serve to exhibit the instructional potential of different delivery methods in interaction with student gender and content type. It is true that previous research has identified differential gender-related rates of skill development in language and mathematics. But it is the cause of these differences that is troublesome. If one subscribes to a biological/psychological explanation of sex differences in the two content areas (most people would not argue along such deterministic lines),

<footnote>*"Traditional teaching." As used here, refers to all forms of classroom-oriented, teacher-directed instruction.</footnote>
a design of this type, or any instructionally-oriented design for that matter, has
little hope of much more simply reiterating those differences. Even for a
nurture-oriented argument that implicates a complex cluster of social, attitudinal
and instructional variables, this design is woefully inadequate. Only if one
believes that instructional delivery makes nearly all the difference, does the
research approach proposed stand a chance of demonstrating the hypothesized
three-way interaction. In pointing this out, I am not criticizing the student so
much as simply indicating the limited theoretical scope that his design can test.
However, this is not the main point of this somewhat protracted tale.

Let's assume for a moment that we have successfully performed the mental
gyrations necessary to accept the latter theoretical view – that instruction, and
particularly method of delivery, makes all the difference to achievement. What
can we expect as we begin to operationalize the independent variables?

We can dispense with the content variable (language versus math) rather
quickly by considering the nature of the dependent measures necessary to test
differences between instructional methods in these fundamentally different
areas. The proverbial "you can't compare apples with oranges" comes
immediately to mind. However, just because we can't compare apples with
oranges directly, doesn't mean we can't examine them descriptively. In our
design, that connotes a correlational approach, not a direct comparison of
means. The content areas can be dealt with, but in a fundamentally different way
than was originally anticipated.

Now we come to the “horns of the dilemma” (although it may appear that
we are approaching them tail first). What methodological considerations are
necessary to provide a fair test of the difference between computer-based
instruction (I’ll call it CBI from now on) and “traditional teaching”? At first
glance it seems that the two delivery methods should be comparable since a
single set of objectives could be constructed to guide each. It is true, then, that
method of delivery stands as a unitary testable concept? Let’s see.

<table><caption>Figure 1: Counterbalancing scheme to control for student-teacher gender differences.</caption><tr><td rowspan="2">Traditional Teaching</td><td>Group 1</td><td>Male Teacher</td><td>Female Teacher</td></tr><tr><td>Group 2</td><td>Female Teacher</td><td>Male Teacher</td></tr></table>
Whenever human teachers are being compared with some alternative, we should immediately ask ourselves “What kind of teacher?” The answer to this question, and others, has a direct bearing on the interpretability of the outcomes (internal validity) and how widely the results can be generalized (external validity). Since teachers come in two varieties, male and female, and since male teachers, for example, may interact differently with students of different sexes, this aspect of “teacher’ should not be ignored. Sex of teacher can be handled in two ways: (a) by counterbalancing student exposure (See Figure 1) to each type of teacher, or (b) by including teacher sex as another independent variable in the design (See Figure 2). The latter approach exposes differences that may be attributable to same sex and different sex (teacher and student) combinations while preserving a modicum of external validity (external validity is considered to be high when experimental conditions are similar to those in the “real world”), as contrasted with the counterbalancing alternative.

<table><caption>**Figure 2:** 2 X 2 Factorial Design in Which Student Sex and Teacher Sex are Crossed Variables.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Sex of Teacher</th><th colspan="2">Sex of Student</th></tr><tr><th>Male<br>Male</th><th>Female<br>Male</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Male<br>Female</td><td>Male<br>Female</td></tr></tbody></table>

So far the only criticism that can be leveled at this addition is one of increased complexity until one realizes that the gender of teacher distinction applies only to the “traditional teacher” condition (until they invent a CBI equivalent of Mr. and Ms. Pacman). This leaves what is called a partially-crossed factorial design - crossed on “traditional teaching,” but not on CBI (Figure 2 shows the complete crossing of teacher sex and student sex, since each level of each factor is represented by a cell) or a retreat to our counterbalancing of like and opposite genders. In this alternative, differences due to gender combinations are spread over the treatments rather than isolated for measurement and analysis. This is not an unreasonable tack to take (provided we can live with the decreased external validity resulting from several teachers in the same course), but look what has happened. The differential nature of our
treatments has forced us to neutralize one potentially important aspect of "traditional teaching" (teacher's gender), or face immense analytical headaches.

Consider another aspect of the teacher issue. Since we know that teachers differ from one another on many continua and that teacher effectiveness contributes somewhat to learning effectiveness, what sort of teaching characteristics should we count as important in, operationalizing this aspect of "traditional teaching"? Naturally, no single teacher embodies all of the relevant characteristics of all teachers. Even if we could establish a reasonable set of criteria that defined the "ideal teacher," we would have a-devil-of-a-time finding one, much less one of each sex. But the real problem with our design lies not in the fact that teachers vary (many behavioral variables that are regularly researched, vary), but that teachers vary as a method of delivery, but CBI doesn't (or at least not in the same way). A similar claim might be made from the opposite direction concerning a characteristic such as length of instructional episode. CBI should proceed at a student's own pace (suggesting that length of instructional episode will vary with students), while "traditional teaching" is usually confined to a pre-set period with outside study time varying from individual to individual. But should student time be counted as a characteristic of method of delivery? If not, CBI varies on contact time, while "traditional teaching" does not.

The class-oriented nature of "traditional teaching" and the concomitant effects of class size (Glass & Smith, 1979; Smith & Glass, 1980 on learning is another knotty problem. Students usually work on computers independently, while "traditional teaching" is usually conducted with classes of students which may vary greatly in size. If one believes in the socializing effects of classroom instruction (e.g., students learning from the questions and comments of other students) or the greater or lesser amounts of teacher attention that is granted by different class sizes, is it really fair to compare this human-human form of interaction with human-computer interaction?

I have touched upon but a few of the issues that a conscientious researcher would need to address in attempting to answer, unambiguously, a "which is better" question concerning our two methods of delivery. But what I have characterized here is a raft of methodological headaches (also see Clark, 1985a, 1985b), is really not that at all. It is, in my view, a not too subtle warning that two instructional treatments are so different that they shouldn't be compared in the first place (of course, two well specified and comparable methods of delivery can be compared, like two different CBI strategies). If you sensed that from the start, you might be surprised to discover that the literature of educational communication and technology is replete with comparisons of just this sort (e.g., televised teaching, programmed instruction, multi-mediated instruction). Often the finding has been "no significant differences," thank goodness. But why bother to construct, what amounts to, a unilinear ranking of instructional methods, when it is likely that each has merit under some circumstance?
Originally, I had intended to end here and, acting on that resolve, asked my colleague, Richard F. Schmid, to critique this piece. His comments are worth mentioning because I think they help to explain a few motivations that drive research of this nature. “There is, on the one hand,” he said, “a natural curiosity about which of two things is better, especially when a popular view (and hope) prevails in some quarters, that one will replace the other (I am sure you know which “one” and which “other” he was referring to). On the other hand, there is a legitimate need in specific situations to know which of two (or more) instructional alternatives to select, especially when big bucks are involved.”

I have little sympathy for the former view since it is engendered by the naive belief, I suspect, that a single technology (used here in the broadest sense) can ever contribute substantially to solving the “ills of instructional practice.” To illustrate this view, I recently overheard a person touting the potentials of interactive videodisc for solving the “teacher problem”, followed by the statement, “after all, educational media failed.” In my view, educational media failed only in the minds of those who initially held unrealistic expectations for them. The use of media does not solve some instructional problems, but it never could and it never will represent a general cure. The same is likely to be the case with current manifestations of instructional technology. If we fail to see them for what they are; as alternative means of achieving instructional aims, that are useful only some of the time, we are bound to be disappointed yet another time. Curiosity* is a wonderful human endowment, but it is insufficient justification, in and of itself, for attempting to answer every question that it propagates.

The latter statement - that my previous arguments remove one means that practitioners have for selecting among instructional alternatives - is more difficult to address, since educational research should concern itself in large measure with answering “real” questions of practice. My earlier admonitions, however, were directed towards those who believe that a general literature of comparisons, however, were directed towards those who believe that a general literature of comparisons among methods of delivery can service specific needs. Here we are no longer asking an abstract question. The conditions upon which effectiveness is largely contingent are restricted and describable. How then can a general literature ever be legitimately useful when the answer must be qualified continually with, “it depends on the specifics”?

An expensive solution to this dilemma, it seems to me, is to conduct local research that is not intended to be generalized outside of the specific circumstances of the testing site (this form of research is akin to evaluation). A far less expensive alternative lies, I think, in careful logical analysis based upon needs that are identified within a specific instructional instance. As a simple example, one would

<footnote>* In actual fact, many forces probably contribute to the pressure that is exerted for research of this sort (e.g., large institutional grants, pressure of publication, journal policies).</footnote>
hardly choose CBI if a need for group interaction has been discerned. These models suggest critical features of the instructional environment, methods and materials that should be considered at each decision point.

My "solutions" are simply "off-the-cuff" answers to serious and vexing questions that plague the designers and redesigners of educational systems. In response to the critic who retorts, "decision making is not that simple." I would say, "that's true." Yet, we seem to be transfixed by the notion that research can provide "once-and-for-all", or more aptly, "one-size-fits-all" answers to these same complex instructional problems. If we are so willing to sacrifice ourselves on the alter of simplicity, we might as well go all the way, it seems to me, and simply flip a coin.

## References

Anderson, R. H. (1976). *Selecting and developing media for instruction*. New York, NY: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.

Clark, R. E. (1985a). Confounding in educational computing research. *Journal of Educational Computing Research*, I. 137-148.

Clark, R. E. (1985b). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta-analyses, *Educational Communication and Technology Journal*, 33. (4) 249-262.

Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of the research on class size and achievement. *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, I*, 2-16.

Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1980). Meta-analysis of research on class size and its relationship to attitudes and instruction. *American Educational Research Journal, 17,4* 19-433.

Keiser, R. A., & Gagne, R. M. (1983). *Selecting media for instruction*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Romiskowski, A. J. (1974). *The selection and use of instructional media*. London; Kogan Page.

Salomon, G., & Clark, R. E. Reexamining the methodology of research on media and technology in education. *Review of Educational Research*, 47, (1), 99-120.

Salomon, G., & Gardner, H. (1986). The computer as educator; *Lessons from television research, Educational Researcher, 1.5*, (1), 13-19.

Weston, D., & Cranton, P. A. (1986). *Selecting instructional strategies*. *Journal of Higher Education, 57,259-288*

## AUTHOR

At the time of the original publication Robert M. Bernard was an Associate Professor of Educational Technology at Concordia University, Montreal Quebec.
# THEORETICAL BASES FOR RESEARCH IN MEDIA

G. M. Torkelson

First Published: Volume 16, No. 1, Winter 1987

A persistent problem facing teachers and researchers alike is finding answers to the questions: what point of view should I assume and what evidence should I use to determine the effects of media upon learners and the ways that learners utilize media to perceive and process information? After many years of research in media these same questions are still being asked and are still largely unanswered, at least to the degree that there are absolutes to guide educators in making decisions. Yet, looking at this situation from an historical perspective, developments over the past ten to fifteen years give promise of more definitive directions.

It is probably fair to say that most studies of media applications to instruction in the first five or six decades of this century were built upon narrower theoretical positions than today. That is, the effects of media upon learners were analyzed primarily as stimulus presentations which were to have a direct influence upon subsequent behavior. Learners were assumed to be reactive and under stimulus control. For example, in 1963, Finn, in defining "instructional technology", suggested that it was "...a branch of educational theory and practice concerned with the design and use of messages which control the learning process." But there were others who had a different view. Several years earlier than Finn, Carpenter (1957) contended that "...teaching materials are effective . . . depending on the degrees of their personal relevance to learners .... The organism or individual interposes its entire relevant life history between the stimulus material and his or her response." In a similar vein. Hartman (1963) in a review of learning theory, emphasized "...that facilitation or interference with learning arises from the cognitive organization the respondent imposes upon the message."

While there were others thinking as Carpenter and Hartman, most media studies were characterized in the familiar *gross comparisons* format. Such research seemed a natural reaction to the expanding availability of media
through federal funding and the need to prove the utility of media for the improvement of education rather than a need to analyze the peculiar characteristics of media themselves. Much research studied learning *with* media rather than studying *about* media effects. All of us are familiar with the oft-repeated phrase "no significant differences." Subsequent analyses have criticized the assumption that global forms of media, such as television and films, were unambiguous entities that somehow could be described and controlled to determine a cause and effect relationship with any precision. Additional criticism focused on the theoretical assumption that learner responses were directly influenced by the stimulus input, with little regard for either the contributions of learner idiosyncrasies or the peculiar characteristics of media themselves.

More recent analyses of viable ways to conduct research and to define the nature of fundamental research questions have focused on the confounding effects of uncontrolled variables. Clark (1983), for example, has suggested that much of media research - that is, that which has been reported as media research - has *actually* been a study of variable methodologies and settings in the uses of media. I would tend to agree, but with a recognition that there have been exceptions. One that comes to mind were the film studies done under Carpenter's direction in the Instructional Film Program at Penn State back in the 40s and 50s. In some of those studies there were careful analyses of variables within films as these affected the performance of subjects. On the other hand, subjects were not questioned to determine which variables were preferred; neither were learner repertoires explored to determine what affected their interpretation of stimulus elements.

Added to the problem of determining defensible theoretical paradigms for research in media are assumptions about the conditions necessary in a research setting to derive generalizations from methods and statistical analyses. I refer to the controversy between the reductionist view of research and those who advocate naturalistic inquiry as a more realistic approach to what life is outside the laboratory setting (Magoon, 1977; Guba, 1981). I do not intend to discuss the intricacies of each point of view, but rather to suggest that our initial orientations to what needs to be investigated and under what conditions quite logically affects our theoretical bases for research. For example, our attempts to control all conditions, either by statistical manipulations or tight controls of the situation and subjects, are based on assumptions that such controls are possible in the first place and that validity and generalizability are possible outcomes. An assumption is also made that reactions of learners as groups are indicative of the true picture about individuals in that group. The opposite view espoused by those who advocate naturalistic inquiry is that the assumptions of the reductionist are untenable, given the interaction of social, contextual, and personal factors which affect learner responses. Each approach to inquiry
assumes its own conceptualizations about the nature of learners and becomes the starting point for judging what should be observed. On the other hand, both methods do provide a framework for the study of effects of variable media characteristics. But the extent to which each method takes into account relevant factors becomes an argument that inevitably leads to judging the results of each type of research paradigm.

Most of us are familiar with conditions that have brought changes in views about media/learning relationships since the days when media were considered primarily as stimulus control mechanisms. Government sponsored research through the National Defense Education Act in the United States, for example, supported traditional gross comparative studies, but also fostered studies of programming of instructional materials, which in turn had an important influence on greater interest among researchers in determining how learners perceived and processed information. While some studies compared the relative advantages of linear versus branching programming, there was also, through the so-called 90-90 criterion for the validation of materials, attention paid to the reaction of individuals to specifics in information displays.

A more recent movement, Trait-Treatment-interaction (TTI) is based on the premise that knowledge of the interactive effects of learner aptitudes with instructional treatments would make it possible to predict the proper types of materials and methods to insure desired learner responses. But TTI has also to contend with basing measurement on a *moment-in-time* in the life of a learner as a defensible basis for predicting future performance. The continuing problem, not only for TTI but for all types of research methodologies and theoretical orientations, is that learners are dynamic individuals changing constantly as more information from many diverse sources is processed each passing day. What causes idiosyncratic responses among learners is still quite elusive.

Clearly, the major focus today is upon the processes by which a learner perceives the environment, processes and stores information, and retrieves it for use. This emphasis has come about because of the recognition that indeed each learner is unique, a product of many experiences, and that messages appear to be meaningful only as each person gives them meaning.

There are current opinions that media, in fact, do not make any difference in learning, at least as measured by typical research paradigms that tend to manipulate situational variables rather than intrinsic attributes of media themselves. But there has been a shift from the more incidental role of media in instruction to a greater emphasis upon the interacting relationships among content and symbol systems with specific learner characteristics. A case in point is the hypothesis of Salomon that the greater the similarity between the coding systems in the message and the coding system in the repertoire of the learner, the more likely learning will occur. Such a shift is also seen in Olson's (1972) theory of instructional means which says that technologies and techniques used
with learners are accompanied by the development in learners of relevant cognitive skills.

What, then, are some prominent theories which have evolved in the last decade? For current opinions I am indebted to Clark and Salomon's (1984) final draft of a manuscript they prepared for the *Third Handbook of Research on Teaching*. Those of you who have studied the 1974 volume by the National Society for the Study of Education, *Media and Symbols*, will find some of these theories familiar.

The first has to do with the nature of symbol systems. This model offers a theoretical foundation for differentiating among symbol systems and may provide a systematic way for defining those aspects of symbols that may not only be pertinent to certain types of information, but also which may serve as devices by which learners process information. I am referring to Goodman's Symbol System Theory, discussed by Gardner (1974) and others. Goodman divides symbols into two categories as being either notational or non-notational. By notational, he means that a symbol must meet the criteria of being unambiguous, such as the concept "one is always one"; it must be semantically disjointed – that is, no two characters can have a common referent – and it must have a finite differentiation. For example, the signs for the bass and treble clef in musical notation are finite differentiations and remain so, assuming no other meaning. Non-notationality, on the other hand, suggests symbols that are dense, replete with information, and subject to a variety of interpretations. A picture may be classified as non-notational because it may be interpreted in a variety of ways. There can, however, be symbols within the picture which can be finite in their meaning and designation, and hence notational. While this discussion is not the place for a detailed explanation of Goodman's model, there is an additional model worth mentioning which complements Goodman's work. It is Gross's identification of various information modes that contain symbol systems peculiar to given sets or types of information. The modes, which he calls primary, are linguistic, socio-gestural, iconic, logico-mathematical, and musical. Each of these categories provides a system for differentiating among symbols used by learners to acquire and process certain kinds of information. They may also be useful for determining whether learners utilize these symbols as tools in their own cognitive processing.

Gross has also formulated two other general symbol classifications which utilize primary modes in idiosyncratic ways. One is the derived mode, such as poetry, dance, and film. The other is the technical mode, suggesting the peculiar language of the sciences, engineering, technologies, and architecture.

A second prominent theoretical formulation of is that of Olson (1972, 1974) referred to earlier. Calling his theory one of instructional means, Olson pinpoints two aspects of media which affect learning. One is that content may assist in the acquisition of rules and principles. The other aspect relates to the
acquisition of skills which are required to utilize the information presented in the medium. Thus, the coding system and means for presenting information may become tools for utilizing similar coding systems and means.

Olson also points out that there is a significant difference between an *utterance* and *text* which have direct implications for our understanding of the functions of media. Olson defined an utterance as oral language that is flexible, unspecified, with a low degree of conventionalization, and that it is negotiable in a social setting. Written language, on the other hand, generally demands precision and explicitness of meaning. It serves to maintain philosophical, scientific, or analytic knowledge. Thus, as learners are schooled in written language, they develop the skill and habituation to textual material. For purposes of analyzing the effect of various forms of media, it may be important to note that long, training and practice in text materials may inhibit learning from other than text. This may be a partial explanation for the discovery of Guba when he observed the visual attention of subjects who watched science demonstrations on television. At times their eyes went out of focus and they tended to watch the mouth of the demonstrator more often that the details of the demonstration. Do we perpetuate dependence upon text by utilizing it continuously in our testing procedures and thus condition learners not to observe other forms of information? Perhaps we need to spend more time in conditioning learners to interpret and glean information from non-textual materials.

The third theoretical model is Salomon's Media Attribute Theory (1979, 1981). The theory says, in effect, that both media and the human mind employ symbol systems for acquiring, storing, and manipulating information. Also, some of the tools of cognition are the consequence of employing symbols that were inherent in the media. In essence, he has suggested a supplantation theory which says that it is possible for technological devices, such as a zoom lens, to provide an observable analogy to the mental process of proceeding from a generalization to a particular and back to a generalization again. The use of a zoom lens to assist field-dependent students to observe details in a picture is offered by Salomon as tentative evidence of this phenomenon. Clark (1983) on the other hand, argued that zooming is not a media attribute, but a method of enlarging and focusing.

In addition to these three theories, there is a controversy that cuts across all of them. It is the controversy whether humans process information through images or propositions. Those who support the imaging hypothesis contend that a mental image is analogous to the perception of the actual object. In the opposite camp, those who deny the possibility of imaging see no direct connection between what one observes and the final knowledge acquired, because all stimulus situations are affected by beliefs, goals, previous knowledge, experience, and emotional states. Final knowledge is governed by rationality, that is, all stimuli are acted upon by the learner's repertoire of the moment.
There is some evidence supporting the notion that factors other than media have more influence on learner responses to media than the elements or coding systems within media themselves. Clark and Salomon (1984) suggest that one relates to the effects of learner anticipation of media in terms of efforts that must be invested in their use. It appears that where media are perceived as critical to future performance, learners will expend more effort. Where media are perceived as entertainment, less effort is expended. Twenty years ago Greenhill (1967) wondered why television instruction did not often prove superior when compared with traditional university instruction. He hypothesized that good television instruction required less expenditure of effort by students; therefore, they put more time into traditional courses which were less well presented, thereby diminishing television effects.

Clark (1983) in reviewing studies of student effort found that high-ability students chose structured methods and media because they perceived that they would have to expend less effort. Lower-ability students, on the other hand, chose less-structured media and more discovery-oriented methods because they wished to avoid the failure that may have come from being unable to fulfill the requirements of the structured and directed situation. In a letter to me, Clark (11/15/83) said, "I have arrived at a very reluctant conclusion that media do not contribute much to learning.. . and only minimally to decoding. I do think that the symbol system approach has promise for instructional design but not much theoretical importance.. ". He thinks media contribute only "...indirectly through variations in persistence which are contributed by our subjective impressions of how much effort is required to learn from various media."

Where, then, are we in our search for theoretical foundations that have viability? Theoretical bases for research have proceeded from one of regarding the learner as reactive and under stimulus control, to one in which the learner is much more a participant in determining what effects media have upon the transmission of information, upon perceptions, and upon cognitive processes themselves. It is not only a matter of how learners perceive the messages conveyed via media, but also one of discovering whether and how learners utilize the coding systems of media as tools for manipulating information. It seems that the attempt to prove media utility is a dead issue, as is the attempt to depend upon gross comparative studies for definitive answers about media characteristics and their influences upon learner behavior. Yet, some fruitful questions still need to be asked for research purposes:

* Do the coding systems of media actually serve as tools for cognition?

* Do skills required for utilizing media content and methodologies become skills in cognition?

* What methods might we use with learners to discover the uniqueness of media?
* Can qualities of media and technological devices supplant or support given mental activities?

* Are notationality and non-notationality viable for analyzing coding systems effects?

* What methodologies best complement the uses of media?

* Do unique qualities of media support particular learning needs, or is it methodologies which contribute the differences in learner responses of media?

* Are learner attitudes and motivations the only dependable evidence to account for media effects?

Finally, let's turn to a questionnaire survey four graduate students and I conducted to determine which of fifty propositions about media characteristics and use would be judged valid or invalid and important for research by a random selection of the membership of the Research and Theory Division, AECT. Nine of the hundred questionnaires were sent to persons outside the Division. Forty two returns were used in data analysis. The fourteen statements regarded valid and important for research follow:

The greater the match between learner experience and media attributes the greater the likelihood of learner acceptance of media content.

Overt/covert responses of learners to media experiences are more likely to result in greater memory storage than covert/passive responses.

The more a symbol system matches the criterial features of an idea or event, the more appropriate it is.

Fitness of a message form depends upon the characteristics of the information.

Negative teacher attitude toward a media presentation creates negative student attitudes.

Presenting various forms of media provides the greatest compatibility with the nature of idiosyncratic brains.

It is critical for effective media usage to know the range of coding elements available in each learner's repertoire.

Sequential build-up of illustrations leads to better understanding.

Excessive detail interferes with transmission of intended information.

The advantage of visual over auditory materials increases for more difficult material.

The more similar the coding schemes in the teacher's and student's repertoires the greater the possibility for learning to take place.

Message, message forms, and conveyance systems interact to convey the intended message.

Cultural differences affect learner interpretations of media.

Learners have difficulty discriminating between subjectivity and objectivity in their interpretation of messages.
References

Carpenter, R. (1977). *Audio Visual Communication Review*, **5** (1), 364-365.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on leaning from media. *Review of Educational Research*, **53** (4), 445-449.

Clark, R. E., & Salomon, G. (1984). Media in teaching. *Third Handbook of Research on Teaching*.

Finn, J. (1963). *Audio Visual Communication Review*, Supplement 6, 1 I(1).

Gardner, H., Howard, V. A., Perkins, D. (1974). A philosophical, psychological, and educational investigation. In D. Olson (Ed.), *Media and symbols: The form of expression, communication and education* (pp. 27-55). 73rd Annual Yearbook of the N.S.S.E. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design. *Review of Educational Research*, **46** (1), 1-24.

Greenhill, L. (1967). Review of trends in research on instructional television and film. In J. Reid, & D. MacLennon (Eds.), *Research in instructional television and film* (pp. 1-17). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. *Educational Communication and Technology Journal*, **29** (2), 75-91.

Hartman, (1963). *Audio Visual Communication Review* **11** (6), 155.

Magoon, A. (1977). Constructivist approaches in educational research. *Review of Educational Research*, **47** (4), 65 1-693.

Olson, D. (1972). On a theory of instruction: Why different forms of instruction result in similar knowledge. *Interchange*, **3** (1), 9-24.

Olson, D., & Bruner, J. (1974). Learning through experience and learning through media. In D. Olson (Ed.), *Media and symbols: The forms of expression, communication and education*. 73rd Annual Yearbook of the N.S.S.E. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Salomon, G. (1970). Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Salomon, G. (1981). *Communication and education*. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Co.

AUTHOR

Gerald M. Torkelson is Emeritus Professor of Education (Educational Communication) at the University of Washington, Seattle WA. His research interests include educational communication and media theory and design and analysis of instructional systems. For many years he was Associate Editor for Theory for *Educational Communication and Technology Journal* (ECTJ).
# THE FUTURE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

Don Beckwith

First Published: Volume 17, Number 1, Winter 1988

## Introduction

What we need is a transformation, not just a reformation of the educational system. We will prepare Master's students for jobs that don't exist and look for school systems with the vision to hire them. We'll call them "Instructional Transformers" and their job will be to guide the learning of our children (Welliver, cited in Middendorf & Coleman, 1987).

Welliver's visionary projection epitomizes the expectation of altruistic dream fulfillment that has drawn people to the field of educational technology for years. Educational technology is a winner. Upon encountering the field one immediately senses the powerful promise of potential. Within educational technology resides the potential for better schooling, better learning, better transmission of information, better interactive communication, better worlds.

Educational technologists can be recognized by the stars in their eyes. They know they are sitting on the most explosive potential of the century. Theirs is the apex of innovative motivation. Whether they are fashioning learning environments, creating media, designing instruction or effecting research and theory, educational technologists have a dream – a dream that can sustain them, and those they touch, well into the next century. As Finn (1964) prophesied, “the educational future will belong to those who can grasp the significance of instructional technology” (p. 26).

With the power of the systems approach, the promise of mastery learning and the potential to subsume and redirect all relevant resources, educational technology can effect the transformation of learning processes and learning outcomes. Further, if it is accepted that improved learning can improve individuals and that improved individuals can effect improved environments, educational technology is a vanguard of social transformation. Educational
technology is visionary, for its base, its focus, its vantage point, its lofty goals are all grounded in the future. Its dream is the transformation of the way things are to the way things could be.

But the dream, while ever present, remains only a dream. The power, promise and potential of educational technology have not been realized. Resultingly, mild insecurity and disappointment have been replaced by unrest and discontent The focus has turned from transformational leadership to survival within the status quo. And the voice of discontent is getting louder and more persistent.

Much of the discontent can be attributed to the realization that educational technology has not yet assumed its predicted third stage of evolution. Analyses of the past and future essences of educational technology (e.g., Davies, 1978) have determined three levels of evolution. The past has been described as the tools approach (Educational Technology 1), i.e., the application of audio-visual devices to the improvement of teaching. The present has been described as the systematic* approach (Educational Technology II), i.e., the development and application of methodological, rule-based processes to the facilitation of learning. The future has been described as the systematic' approach (Educational Technology III), i.e., the creation of unified and dynamic wholes (from previously separated components) to effect the transformation of learning. The field dreams of the ideal of Educational Technology III while operating within the status quo confines of Educational Technology 11.

The discontent with mere survival within the level of the systematic approach, however loudly voiced and/or solution oriented, has been insufficient to force the field to the level of the systemic approach. The mission and the belief in the mission remain – to transform the learning process to a level that can only at present be imagined. Just as a master coach can transform individual teenagers into an Olympic medalist team; just as a master architect can stretch the capabilities of each construction team; just as a master film director can transform almost any assortment of people, things and processes into a vibrant and scintillating whole – so too can a master educational technologist systemically structure environments to effect higher and higher levels of cognitive ability. Instead, the status quo of Educational Technology II appears to be guaranteeing its survival at the expense of the realization of Educational Technology III.

The purpose of this Perspective is to review the mounting discontent (and its imbedded solutions) in order to determine the traps that must be avoided and

<footnote>* “The words ‘systematic’ and ‘systemic’ come from different roots. The former the Latin, with a nuance of order or interval; and the latter from the Greek, with a nuance of organized whole” (Davies, 1984, p. 9).</footnote>
the pathways that must be created so that educational technology can force its
evolution to the systemic approach and the then reachable dreams beyond.

The Discontent

The discontent within the ranks of educational technologists is not new, nor
is it surprising. A future- and ideal-oriented field will, by definition, be
discontented with the present, the status quo. Whereas the discontent of the past
focused on the non-realization of Educational Technology III, however, the
more recent discontent appears to be focused on the difficulty of surviving at the
level of Educational Technology 11. Concern has shifted from the future of
learning to the future of educational technology. Moreover, for the past ten years
the latter concern has increased in tempo, breadth and frequency. Postulates
abound on why educational technology has not yet realized its transformational
potential. Proposed solutions to the problem are even more prevalent. These
solutions, however, especially ones that purport to effect short-term survival,
may, in fact, effect a continuation of the problem.

Finn (1955) warned that unless the field creates and communicates,
throughout society, a public philosophy that is adequate for the times, "we can
well disintegrate... we can become so immersed in trivia that a scientific
dictatorship is inevitable" (p. 252). While this warning was targeted at a field
that was at the time struggling to evolve from Educational Technology I to
Educational Technology II, it remains valid for the struggling emergence to
Educational Technology III.

Expanding on Finn's concern years later, Silber (1970) suggested that
educational technologists did not even know what field they were in, that they
had not communicated to themselves - much less throughout society - either the
field's conceptualized purpose or even the interrelations of the components of
the system called educational technology.

Torkelson (1977) reviewed what educational technology had accomplished
and had yet to accomplish. Still needed, he suggested, were for the field a) to
apply its intellectual technique directly to the benefit of humankind, by, for
example, encompassing "value systems and idiosyncrasies of individuals in the
large purposes of schooling and society" (p. 357); b) to integrate the combined
energies of its subgroups to common problems, such as the lack of an agreed-
upon path and continuity for future inquiry, and the distance between the
practitioner and researcher; and c) to constantly challenge itself by asking the
"blunt, yet critical question: SO WHAT!" (p. 358).

Clark (1978) criticized graduate programs for producing practitioners
rather than scholarly inquirers; and faculty for conducting too little research,
teaching inappropriate research skills, holding experimental design and data
analysis skills in low esteem, and for allowing soft-money contracts to control
the focus of doctoral programs.
Silber (1978) chided that unless educational technology overcame its problems i.e., a) the lack of proactive synthesis of the subprofessions within the field, due to the restricted conceptual frameworks of the membership of each; b) the failure to effect or even recognize our potential impact on the educational system; c) the concern with the means rather than the ends of education, and therefore the nonenforcement of the field's ethical and value positions; d) the inappropriate and limited focus of research; e) the low quality of professional communication among educational technologists; f) the lack of understanding of the field's conceptual framework; and g) the inadequacy of leadership development efforts - "the profession will remain only partially developed or, perhaps, regress to a less fully developed stage" (p. 184), i.e., a subservient rather than a leadership role.

Torkelson (1980) urged that educational technologists move away from reductionist research (which could be said to typify the systematic approach of Educational Technology II) and toward constructionist research (which could be said to typify Educational Technology III).

Heinich (1984) placed the blame for educational technology's slower than desired evolution partly on the shoulders of those in other fields who reject our cause, but mostly on our own shoulders for a) creating alliances with those who have neither the power nor inclination to effect change; b) being blind to what-should-have-been obvious institutional constraints; c) allowing vested interests to interfere with scholarly inquiry; d) failing to distinguish "between our administrative 'home' and our intellectual foundations" (p, 73), thus fostering the inhibition of intellectual freedom; e) artificially restraining our technology to fit institutions within which it is being applied; f) narrowing our research focus on such as learning gains rather than exploring the system effects of technology" (p. 76), i.e., emphasizing conclusion-oriented research over decision-oriented research; g) trying to apply established but inappropriate research questions, designs and techniques to systemic issues; and h) failing to "produce" sufficient reflective, thinking educational technologists. He further labeled educational technology a craft rather than a profession (again characteristic of the systematic approach of Educational Technology II).

Clark (1984) suggested that educational technology graduate programs have focused on instructional design models and procedures at the expense of the mindset of science' and the tools of research, resulting in reducing the number of graduates who have the independent and original inquiry skills and the devotion to keep our field alive and well.

Hynka and Nelson (1985) building from Davies' (1978) threefold definition of educational technology (the tools approach, the systematic approach and the systemic approach), presented an argument for viewing the field as a metaphor in order to realize a tripartite system which could sustain a creative productivity through its synergy.
Winn (1986), echoing a host of prior discontent with research in educational technology (e.g., Becker, 1978; Beckwith, 1984; Clark & Snow, 1975; Koetting, 1983; Salomon & Clark, 1977) stated that we are not only addressing the wrong research questions but also are applying inappropriate research methodologies. And Torkelson (1987) called for an end to the use of static research models in the study of dynamic learners and learning processes.

Gagne (1987) regretfully reminded us “that instructional design is not a part of the established order” (p. 20) in industry, military or universities, and warned that the valuable technical knowledge that instructional designers have “must be guarded from contamination, and not be compromised by the various influences of the marketplace” (p. 20).

Clark (1987) suggested that in order for us to become the world's third profession after medicine - and engineering - we must emulate the first two professions. Echoing Heinich's (1984) concerns, he said that until we do so, we will remain a craft.

At the recent (1987) conference of Professors of Instructional Technology and Development (PIDT), 85 professors from the U.S. and Canada shared a weekend of informal presentations and discussions. In steady succession, throughout the conference, concerns about the survival of educational technology were expressed, and a wide array of “solutions” were traded. Rossett (1987), for example, traced her department’s success at finding new, alternative and amazing markets, during the late 70’s and early 80’s, primarily in business and industry. “It was easy. It was also seductive” (p. 1), but now that the school market is beginning to resuscitate itself, we must, she suggested, for survival (translated in terms of monetary and administrative support for faculty and equipment), be ready to balance the needs of our diverse markets.

Bratton (1987) once again offered a plan for certification as the solution to our problem, the premise being that through the national and international certification/accreditation of educational technology graduates and graduate programs, quality and survival will be assured. By following the paths of such as the National Board of Medical Examiners and the Institute of Industrial Engineers, educational technology, too, could emerge as a respected profession.

Walter Dick offered the Florida State University model of linking, inseparably, educational technology and educational psychology in our graduate programs in order to do better what teacher education purports to do. Canelos (1987) offered the Pennsylvania State University examples of working with and for departments of engineering, which are currently receiving large development grants and in need of instructional design consulting. Schwen (as cited in Middendorf & Coleman, 1987) suggested the development of an educational technology degree to “rock the boat of regular teacher education” (p. 4). Barry Bratton proposed that educational technology needed some type of continuing
education system so that graduates can keep up with the field. (Perhaps this too could be accredited.)

Caffarelia and Sachs (1997) announced the forthcoming publication of *Doctoral Research in Educational Communication and Technology*, conceived to “help the profession to identify invisible colleges and research trends, (for) by building upon the research of others, future researchers can advance the field more collectively than could be done by one individual working in isolation” (p. 3)

A large number of participants expressed concern about the next generation of educational technology professors, since very few graduates opt for academia over the higher-paying corporate world. In fact, this worry seemed to pervade the conference as an undercurrent theme. Such comments as, “... for those who will sit in these chairs at future meetings. ...”; “... for those who will follow us...”; “very few of our graduates are interested in our jobs, jobs in higher education”; “we must do more to emphasize the positive aspects of professorship and de-emphasize the negative aspects” were sounded and echoed throughout the weekend. Another question was posed more than once: “Why do most college of education faculty view educational technology and instructional design endeavors as superficial, unprofessional, training rather than education, or any of the other negative comments often expressed?” Again, the concern was that of survival – survival of the professors of educational technology, survival of the field of educational technology.

Throughout the presentations and discussions, the underlying questions of “who are we”, “where do we want to go”, “how can we best affect the world?” Middendorf & Coleman, 1987) were omnipresent. To the extent that one can judge a field by the words and actions of the professors within that field, it would appear that educational technology is undergoing a period of anxiety, a temporary loss of focus/direction/raison d'etre. Silber's (1971) old question: “What field are we in, anyway?” is resurfacing in a number of interesting and, perhaps, frightening ways.

The discontent expressed in publications, presentations and conversations is clear, and it is pervasive. We are not being complacent about the situation. Solutions are being offered. Solutions are being applied. But these very solutions may be the seeds of our own infertility. If we are to survive, purposefully, as the cutting edge field of our original vision, there are some solution-related traps that must be avoided.

## The Traps

The three major traps (Compromised Integrity, Status Quo Adherence, and Solidification) are presented as separate categories to ensure comprehensiveness and to facilitate discussion. The categories (and their sub-categories) are not
intended to be seen as mutually exclusive. Approach them as a set of interrelated
and interdependent traps.

The Trap of Compromised Integrity

The trap of Compromised Integrity can be found in three forms: a) Innovation affiliation, b) Greener pastures, and c) Political expediency.

*Innovation affiliation.* This trap is realized as the temptation to define learning and instructional problems in terms of the latest innovative 'solutions' rather than to create appropriate solutions to pre-addressed problems. Whether the ensnarement is in the form of 'blind' adoption of hardware, software, methodology or structure, the bait is alluring. Within the shining, bright newness of the innovation resides hope. How many have not been swept away (at least momentarily) by the dreams embedded within videodisc technology (or substitute any other magnetic innovation)?

The innovation is there. It is tangible, public and can be put to use
immediately. Further, since innovations tend to be popular, those who affiliate
with them may also be popular, or at least be seen as people who are in step with
important trends. There is also the hope of survival; with a new gimmick, a new
thrust, we may be able to stay alive long enough to do what we really must and
want to do.

For the above reasons – hope, convenience, popularity – the pressure will remain on educational technologists to adopt and incorporate the latest innovations. Some recent examples: Clark (1987) suggested that an educational technology graduate program should be structured along the lines of the latest problem-orientation models of medical education (operationalized by such leaders as Harvard, McMaster and Maastricht); Rossett (1987) suggested that opportunity is here and now to teach computer literacy skills to all public school teachers, for we have the hardware, the expertise, and the desire has been communicated by governments and university administrators. Beckwith (1987) suggested that computer-mediated conferencing has the potential for effecting superior group problem-solving skills.

While there is nothing inherently wrong in hop-on-the-bandwagon
suggestions such as these, the risks are threefold. First, looking for the cutting
edge in other fields can have the effect of transforming a leader into a follower,
constantly looking for the next innovation to latch on to rather than creating the
cutting edge to lean out and lead from.

Second, while it is important for a cutting edge field to be aware of and
purposefully incorporate what is new and viable within its systemic framework,
educational technology cannot afford to run the risk of defining itself (or letting
itself be defined) through current phenomena. By falling into this trap,
educational technology has, *inter alia*, been defined as a field of equipment
jockeys, Skinnerian behaviorists, media producers and computer software
specialists. When the vanguard message is not strong enough, educational technology runs the risk of being defined by its most visible and tangible parts; it becomes just another nomadic craft following today's sun, hoping that a new sun to follow lies just beyond the horizon.

Third, the time and energy given to the adoption of innovations can deplete significantly the time and energy needed for goal realization. This phenomenon is especially relevant when there are so many tempting innovations on the marketplace. While educational technology is, by definition, a subsumptive field, i.e., it is systemically possible to incorporate *all* on the way to goal realization, history suggests that innovation affiliation has more often led to the divergent dissipation of desired goals.

Through innovation affiliation temporary survival may be guaranteed at the cost of identity, purpose, and cutting edge leadership. Being on the cutting edge of positive change is not to be equated to latching on to what appear to be the current winners. When a field is truly operating on the cutting edge, the world comes to it. As true now as it was when the field first emerged, there is a need for a collective of educational technologists (balanced on the cutting edge) which, by its very integrity of systemic validity, demands followers.

*Greener pastures*. ...Leadership will have to come from individuals who do scholarly inquiry for its own sake, who do not have one eye (or both) constantly on the alert for the next consulting opportunity" (Heinich, 1984, p. 85).

Now that the consulting opportunities in medical education, public schools and much of higher education have been all but exhausted by educational technologists, and those opportunities in business and industry appear likely soon to follow suit, we are once again seeking greener pastures. Engineering, for example, has been touted as the ideal pasture for current and future grazing (e.g., Canolis, 1987), for engineering has the money and is in need of the services that educational technology can provide. There are potential contracts and internships galore, and even, it is said, possibilities to link academically in a variety of ways with departments of engineering in higher education. The obvious risk in falling into this trap is that of losing one's intellectual integrity by selling out to the highest bidder.

At three educational technology conferences in the past year people have been seen wearing T-shirts proclaiming, "We will do IT in your field". While on the way to becoming the world's third profession (after medicine and engineering) we might, instead, become part of the oldest profession.

*Political expediency*. In any educational technology endeavour, be it in academia or on the front line, there is the temptation to use political expediency to ensure temporary (and perhaps on-going) survival. Compromise, in the form of doing what is expected of us (by those who do not know what we are, capable
of or by those who know very well what we are capable of and feel threatened),
instead of doing what we know must be done, is high risk behaviour.

While all educational technologists must deal with significant others who
may in some way affect their destiny, the trap snaps shut when the time and
energy expended satisfying the perceived desires/mandates of these significant
others preclude the time and energy needed to satisfy the mission of educational
technology. Compromise for political expediency is not a critical attribute of a
cutting edge field. Every instance of relinquishing the integrity of the cutting
edge ideal is one step closer to the status quo. Every realization of others'
misconceptions (whether through their ignorance or awareness) is one step
backward from the educational technology ideal.

Such steps may be rationalized with surface logic, e.g., "It's what the client (Substitute 'dean', 'boss', 'student', 'subject matter expert', 'employer') wants"; "These are our bread and butter courses"; "It's where the money is"; "If we don't, we'll be forced to amalgamate with Department X"; "By doing this, we'll generate FTE's (Substitute 'further contracts', 'student employment possibilities'), and then we can do the important things we really want and need to do"; "the state/university/administration expects it"; "This is the way it is"; "This is the reality of the situation". The true reality, however, is that by accepting and submitting to "reality", the ideal is lost.

The compromise of political expediency can have a stifling effect on every
aspect of educational technology - its programs, its graduates, its professional
work, its goals. Yet the practice persists. In fact, the trap of political expediency
has so exacerbated the ill-being of the field that radical "solutions" have been
proposed. Heinich (1984), for example, so frustrated with educational
technology's futile attempts at transforming the educational status quo,
advocated that our place is on the side of management (rather than labor) so that
a top-down coup may be effected. Schwen (cited in Middendorf & Coleman,
1987), so fed up with the ineffectuality of teacher education, proposed the
creation of an undergraduate educational technology program to compete
directly with teacher education programs. Clark (1984) so discontented with the
inability of educational technologists to do what they should be doing (i.e.,
scholarly inquiry) urged that educational technology faculty and students have a
solid background in and mastery of science.

Awareness of the deleterious effects of political expediency, not the least of
which is the radical reaction to these effects, is a necessary first step toward
avoidance of the trap. The solution - minimizing the compromise - can follow.
Other proposed "solutions", such as the above-mentioned, face yet another trap,
that of Status Quo Adherence.
The Trap of Status Quo Adherence

This trap awaits in three guises: a) Emulation; b) Legitimacy; and c)
Absorption.

*Emulation*. Educational technology emerged to fill a gap left by the status quo. Educational technologists were and remain dissatisfied with the efforts of established fields to effect positive, meaningful change. While dedicated to a transformation to the teaching-learning ideal, educational technology persists in seeking out other models to emulate, status quo fields to mimic, instead of forcing to realization Educational Technology III.

A case in point: It has been suggested that we emulate the two established professions - medicine, and engineering (e.g., Clark, 1987) - so that we too may become a profession (or at least display the external trappings of a profession?) Can a cutting edge field determined to transform the status quo risk emulation of established professions? When the medical profession dedicates itself to a transformation - from the repair of malfunction to the creation of steady-state health - it may be worthy of emulation. When the engineering profession dedicates itself to a transformation from minor modifications of and improvements to existing environments to the creation of ideal environments for living - it too may be worthy of emulation. It may be a very long wait.

If others must be emulated, let it be those who have successfully applied systemic creation to the continual transformation of outcomes. Two that come to mind are film directors and athletic coaches. Both have demonstrated a capability to create a steady progression of new and improved, transformed systems from the potential system components at hand.

Part of the motivation for emulation, it appears (e.g., Heinich, 1984), stems from the fear of scaring off or eliciting defensive behaviour from those who have a vested interest in the status quo. While we, for example, are careful not to present educational technology as a panacea, our hope that it could be keeps us going; we are careful not to present educational technology as the revolutionary, transformational rebel that it is. Change is our game, but we act as if we are part of the establishment. The waves from a rocking boat caught in the undertow pass without notice.

The other part of the motivation stems from the loneliness and anxiety that come with being on the cutting edge. It is scary on the edge. A leader must look for direction and purpose from within and many times must gut it out on faith alone. Until the field accepts the systemic approach as the suprasystem/suprastructure that it is, educational technology will remain a craft or, at best, a technology with a science foundation, i.e., the systematic approach. To suggest that the systemic approach is scientific, is or should be based on the methods of science is folly. Educational Technology III, is a new breed which cannot draw on the principles of the status quo for its definition, operationalization nor evaluation
By limiting ourselves to the status quo structure, within which to fashion the means to our desired ends, we limit our findings to those of the status quo, for it is the status quo environment (in all its limited yet diverse applications) which has produced the status quo outcomes. Our ever-present dissatisfaction with such outcomes should force us to create our own viable systems rather than to emulate systematic models of proven insufficiency,

*Legitimacy*. Closely related to the trap of emulation is the trap of legitimacy. So intent are we at gaining and maintaining the reputation of a legitimate profession, we strive to look and act like the “legitimate” disciplines. The acceptable research in educational technology looks like legitimate research – legitimate, that is, for psychology, sociology, medicine. The journals of educational technology have the size and shape of legitimacy. Their contents, order, review procedures, presentational formats all strive for the look and feel of legitimacy. No matter that a very small percentage of educational technologists subscribe to these journals, they nonetheless convince us of their legitimate rigor, excellence, and worthiness. So, too, for the educational technology conferences, striving for the legitimate look and feel of an AERA or APA conference, forcing would-be presenters to take fewer chances and tow the party line. Is adherence to the Status quo in terms of legitimacy worth the price of losing sight of our systemic goal and mandate?

One problem in striving for legitimacy is that only that which has already been legitimated is legitimate. If educational technology adopts the posture of the legitimate within the status quo, it relinquishes the opportunity · nay, right · to create new and better-suited legitimate postures. What makes for legitimacy in fields that focus their energies on the systematic discovery of *what is* cannot be the same as that which makes for legitimacy in a field that focuses its energies on the systemic creation of *what could* be. The legitimacy of an educational technology posture, whether we are examining graduate programs, research, development, production, dissemination, or whatever, can only be evaluated by systemic criteria. Our potential legitimacy lies in the systemic approach of Educational Technology III. It seems that the time is right to create our own legitimacy – a legitimacy that is modeled after the true experts in educational technology (i.e., the risk takers, the rule breakers, the system creators) – for we need the creation of legitimate systems designed specifically for all aspects of our field: research, development, programs, etc. Until this has been accomplished, yet another trap looms – that of being absorbed by status quo legitimates.

*Absorption*. Educational technology has done very well with respect to surviving. But this survival has been at the cost of attachment to and absorption by other fields. Educational technologists have become, over the years, teacher educators, faculty development specialists, medical educators, training consultants, to name but a few. Not only has our field attached itself to existing,
successful fields and been absorbed by them in the process – each time redefining its identity (and losing a bit more of its original identity) – but it has also attached itself to emerging fields promising the prospect of survival. Fields such as open learning, organizational development, distance education, cybernetics (general systems), and human resources development come to mind.

At the PIDT conference telling questions arose time and time again: “Where do we turn now?” (now that the business and industry market is close to saturation), “To whom do we attach ourselves?”. Trying to instill some optimism, many suggested that the time is ripe to look back to the public schools. After all, the predictions all suggest increasing enrollments. Here certainly is a chance to rebuild and restaff the media centers that flourished in the 60’s and 70’s, and to work with teachers and school boards on the reform and renewal of instruction and curriculum. Others put forth computer literacy within the university environment as the next obvious target. Still others suggested that educational technology needed to accelerate and increase its attachment with the military establishment. And perhaps the nonprofit sector (e.g., museums, libraries) holds some promise for attachment, absorption, survival.

Educational technology has unfortunately established itself as a field that can only survive via attachment to other fields. A potential cutting edge field has defined and redefined itself through a series of parasitic associations rather than through its own goals for learning transformation. Our field has allowed itself to be used and to be seen as a means for effecting the goals of other fields (however worthwhile) rather than as a means to the worthwhile and legitimate goals of educational technology.

As a vanguard field, educational technology must think in terms of leadership risk rather than parasitic survival. Among other things, a cutting edge field provides clear, desirable visions (if they still can be remembered) and means for achieving these. By reason, these visions are at best contrary to those imaged by non cutting edge fields. Hence, the risk. While the cutting edge is sharp and at times scary, the risk is far greater if someone else is allowed to hold the handle. While there may be untapped fields willing to absorb educational technology into an adjunct role, the ultimate consequence of the trap of absorption is the loss of the singular identity necessary to realize our unique potential to lead in the creation of ideals rather than to serve for the betterment of the status quo.

Status quo adherence has resulted in educational technology’s chameleonesque behaviour for the past 25 years. At first glance, this may appear to be the epitomization of a vibrant, dynamic field. In fact, by jumping from one survival attachment to another and losing identity to each in turn – instead of creating a dynamism of self-realization – educational technology is sowing the seeds of staticity. While each new attachment may bring the excitement and
invigoration of another breath of life, temporary survival is insufficient and unfulfilling. Only iron-jawed adherence to the ideals of educational technology can guarantee long-term survival, mission realization, and the ultimate in excitement and invigoration.

## *The Trap of Solidification*

When, in education, the psychologist or observer and experimentalist in any field reduces his findings to a rule which is to be uniformly adopted, then, only, is there a result which is objectionable and destructive of the free play of education as an art. (Heinich, 1984, p. 87)

Reducing findings to a rule can be said to be characteristic of the systematic approach of Educational Technology II. When finally achieved, the free play of education as an art, on the other hand, will be characteristic of the systemic approach of Educational Technology III. Through continued reduction to uniformly applied rules, educational technology can solidify at the status quo, relinquishing the systemic dynamism necessary for transformation to the ideal. By accepting a caged existence within the traps of Compromised Integrity and Status Quo Adherence, educational technology has sampled the bait of the ultimate trap of Solidification – ultimate because once that trap has sprung, the potential realization of Educational Technology III will be lost forever.

Evidence of solidification is everywhere. At the most foundational level, educational technology has solidified as a field that has yet to proclaim, widely and loudly, its public philosophy. The focus continues to bypass the ends to spotlight the means the means of survival (of the field, of the sub-groups within), the means of research, the means of graduate programs, the means of educational technologists.

The energy needed to apply the intellectual techniques of educational technology to the betterment of humankind has been sapped by solidification within the mode of short-term survival. Thus the desired ends of our field are subverted to the desired ends of our survival benefactors.

The intent of the sub-groups within educational technology to survive as separate, meaningful entities has precluded the desirable (from the systemic point of view) synthesis of these sub-groups into a dynamic, purposeful whole, capable of elevating the field to its destiny. Within the subgroups there is solidification as well. In instructional design, for example, the models that are touted are, with rare exception (e.g., Bratton, 1977; Gentry & Trimby, 1984, Goldman, 1984) systematic, rule-based, reductionist procedures, differing little one to another.

Graduate programs, too, have solidified – to a primary focus on instructional design models and procedures (Clark, 1984). The graduate programs of today appear to be clones of the cutting edge programs of a decade
ago; in examining current graduate programs, one is struck with the overwhelming sensation of *deja vu*. The only originality found is within those programs which have 'had' to implement innovative solutions to survive in academia. Moreover, acceptance of proposed certification and accreditation plans could effect total program solidification.

Research in educational technology has come close to solidification as an inappropriate and limited method of inquiry. The cementing of reductionist, conclusion oriented, static, systematic research models precludes the needed study and realization of systemic entities. Systemic ends cannot be attained via systematic means.

The motto of the trap of Solidification could be: "Let's not reinvent the wheel". While educational technology will neither benefit from the reinvention of the known wheel nor from the novel application of existing wheels, the determination to create something *better* than the wheel will freeze the closing jaws of the trap.

To remain on the cutting edge, educational technology cannot enjoy the false comfort of solidification, cannot allow the devolution of artful systemic approaches to uniformly applied systematic rules. Only by embracing the amorphousness of the systemic approach can educational technology ensure its necessary, future existence.

As educational technologists have discovered, the traps of Compromised Integrity, Status Quo Adherence and Solidification are easy to fall into. They can be alluring and captivating. They can appear to be logical and rightful pathways to follow. They seem to offer security and comfort. It would be easy to suggest that educational technology just avoid the traps - easy, but misleading. For the traps to be successfully avoided, alternatives must be created alternatives that serve as pathways to Educational Technology III and subsequent realization of the ideal.

## Pathways

As I see it, two things must be done in order to resolve the current educational technology dilemma: a) reaffirm and publicly proclaim the goal and philosophy of educational technology; and b) create systemic roles for educational technology, educational technologists, and research in educational technology.

### Goal and Philosophy

In its quest for survival, educational technology has focused its energies on the means rather than the end. The goal of educational technology, and its philosophical base, have been momentarily obscured by attention to such means as designing graduate programs, implementing instructional designs for clients,
maintaining a piece of the teacher education pie, conducting “legitimate” research, disseminating hardware and software, fashioning learning environments, and gaining acceptance and support from those in authority. The goal is still there; it has just not been recently attended to or sought after. While never formally stated as such (but often implied), I submit that the goal of educational technology is the transformation of learners and the learning process. Our goal is at once a goal of vision and proactivity.

Heinich (1984) suggested that “survival depends on establishing our own intellectual identity” (p. 73). The first step in this direction is the public affirmation and proclamation of our goal – the transformation of learners and learning processes. No other field shares this goal. Other fields are trying to discover what learning is, to determine how learning occurs, to facilitate learning. Our own intellectual identity awaits realization through public affirmation.

Just as the goal of educational technology has been kept under wraps, so too has the philosophical base of educational technology been implied rather than directly communicated. The philosophy is inherent in the voiced discontent with the field. Simply stated: We believe that all learners can be transformed to the highest level of cognitive ability. With such a lofty goal and supportive philosophical base, an extremely powerful means is necessary to effect goal realization. We have that too -the systemic approach.

Once we have reaffirmed our philosophy, goal and means to ourselves, and then publicly stated them to society, we can get on with the business of creating systemic roles for educational technology, educational technologists and research in educational technology.

## *The Role of Educational Technology*

If educational technology is to have a viable, meaningful and identifiable place in society it must assume the role that others have not and will not assume - the role of idealizer (i.e., one who creates the means to realize the ideals of learning). The systemic approach enables us to serve as the problem-solvers of the learning process, the dreamers and creators of new and more effective learner systems.

Educational technology must also assume the role of conscience of learning in all sectors. Ours is the responsibility for ensuring the strengthening of individual value systems, idiosyncratic uniquenesses. Ours is the responsibility for ensuring the realization of the ethical and value positions of educational technology. Since operating systemically requires control over all system components (including those of Educational Technology I and II) ours is the responsibility for management of learner and learning transformation.
The Role of Educational Technologists

If Educational Technology III is to emerge and work, every educational technologist must be capable of systemic operation, i.e., every educational technologist must be a scholar (in the broadest sense of the word), "someone prepared to examine his or her own field in terms of its basic premises, its status, and its place in the general scheme of things - a reflecting, thinking individual" (Heinich, 1984, p.86). Beyond this, educational technologists should be creative, proactive individuals, always aware of the current systemic level of our dynamic, upwardly-spiraling field, and creating the next systemic level. The ideal educational technologist is not one who follows all of the known rules, not even one who follows all of the known rules well. The ideal educational technologist is one who breaks the known rules and creates new rules, thus enabling accomplishment of systemic creation, the type of creation not possible through the application of known, status quo, systematic rules.

Instead of spending time and energy training graduate students for specific, known jobs, as Clark (1984) suggested is occurring too frequently, educational technology could be preparing students, as Welliver (1987) suggested, for jobs that do not yet exist. For this to be possible, graduates must be equipped with a) altruistic skills that go beyond job acquisition and maintenance, to the satisfaction of learning needs of self, others and educational technology; b) systemic directorship ability, i.e., the ability to create (the way a good athletic coach or film director does) viable systems to transform learning, to direct, from conceptualization through evaluation and reconceptualization, toward successive approximations of systemic realization; c) the ability to control and manipulate given means (and create needed means) to effect desired ends; d) the skill to break known rules and create appropriate new rules as needed, the application of which will lead to higher, more inclusive, and greater integrative levels of performance -just long enough to break those newly created rules and create even newer ones; e) the ability to determine valid learning needs, above and beyond those perceived by the learner and/or the client; f) the ability to evaluate their own performance, the performance of learners, and the performance of educational technology; g) the skill to offer alternatives to the status quo by defining and redefining the ideal; and h) the ability to think and act systemically in all situations.

To the extent that our graduates master these skills, our long-term survival (without resorting to the short-term survival traps of Compromised Integrity, Status Quo Adherence and Solidification) will be assured. Whether educational technologists assume the traditional jobs of systems managers, producers, instructional designers, human resources developers, evaluators or professors, or jobs that do not yet exist, the role assumed and performed must be that of a transformer of learning if the field is to survive and thrive on the cutting edge. When all educational technologists have assumed the role of transformer, the
artificial boundaries between the sub-groups within the field and between the researcher and practitioner will disappear, allowing educational technology to transform itself to the systemic field it must become.

A word about the intellectual colleagues of educational technologists: While the desired state for a cutting edge field is for every individual within to possess and exhibit the above-mentioned skills, in every field there are a few individuals who are always on the cutting edge and beyond. These are the mavericks (the geniuses, perhaps), able to define true needs, set desirable goals, create viable means, and evaluate the effectiveness of performance. It is these individuals - from any field - who must be our intellectual kin, our models, our support group.

The role of the educational technologist is one of catalyst of optimism, aligned, at least in spirit, with others who are proactively trying to raise the roof beams, to elevate the actualized potential of human performance. With the afore-mentioned skills in hand and with the intellectual kinship of these mavericks from other fields, each and every educational technologist will be drawn to and capable of systemic inquiry. But first the role of research in educational technology must be attended to.

## *The Role of Research*

In keeping with the goal and philosophy of educational technology, the obvious role of research is to accept such charges as Bloom's (1984) "2 sigma" challenge (an unfortunate norm-referenced concept), i.e., to create systems that effect learner performance two standard deviations above the mean. (The systemic researcher might prefer the challenge of creating systems to effect learner performance at the highest levels of affect and cognition.)

In order to accept this challenge, educational technology must first abolish the artificial distinctions between its subcomponents. With the systemic approach there can be no distinctions between research, development, evaluation, management, teaching, design, or learning. In Educational Technology III all are one system with one goal, one philosophy, one means, and one role to play. By fully incorporating all educational technology components into the research process, the problem of limitations and inappropriateness of systematic approach research to the study of dynamic systems is eliminated. In its place is a proactive, systemic approach with the high expectations that come with a strong goal orientation. The systematic exclusion and/or control of variables is replaced by the systemic inclusion of all variables. All educational technology components become proactive participants in the research process. The research question, "Let's see what happens" transforms itself, through the systemic approach, to the challenge, "Let's make it happen together". (See Beckwith, 1984, for a fuller discussion of one possible systemic research methodology.)
Winn (1986) building from his earlier work (1975) and the work of Beckwith (1983) on open system models of learners, suggested that

> ... if we can create expert instructional design systems, it should be possible to create CAI systems that design themselves as they interact with students. In other words, the prescriptive principles embodied in an instructional theory would be discovered by the system as it became familiar with each student it was teaching. In effect, a separate theory of instruction would develop for each student, offering the ultimate in adaptive instruction, (p. 35 1)

Imagine such to include all of the components of educational technology - research, design, development, production, learners, teachers, evaluation, management, etc. - together operating as a system, to effect higher and higher levels of learning transformation. Imagine such a system to be the personal learning environment of your dreams - rich, vibrant, alive, dynamic, accelerating - an environment in which such as research and development, production and dissemination, and teaching and learning are fused so tightly together that transformation is activated and reactivated like coiled springs released from their solidifying compression. In rapid succession, the system knows, knows it knows, knows how it knows, knows how to control how it knows, knows how to improve how it knows, searches to know what and how it doesn't yet know, and knows how to improve what it knows (Ego, 1987).

And such a systemic research model is possible - but only if the current systematic form is abandoned. As Heinich (1984) suggested, "When the linear extension of a technological form" (in this case, the systematic approach) "reaches its limits, an increase in scale can only occur when the form itself is abandoned" (p. 76); "increasing the scale" (in this case by forcing evolution to the systemic approach) "increases the range of control" (p. 76). Increasing the range of control increases the likelihood of goal attainment, dream realization.

## Conclusion

Educational technology has a powerful and worthy dream - a dream yet to be fulfilled. Resultingly, the discontent within the field is mounting. Centering on the inability of educational technology to transform itself from the systematic approach to the systemic approach, this pervasive discontent warns of three debilitating traps - Compromised Integrity, Status Quo Adherence, and Solidification.

It is suggested that the pathways leading out of the dilemma are: a) the reaffirmation and public proclamation of the goal (the transformation of learners and the learning process) and philosophy (that all learners can be transformed to the highest levels of cognitive ability) of educational technology; and b) the substitution of the traps of the systematic approach with a systemic recreation of
the roles of educational technology, educational technologists, and research in educational technology.

This accomplished, the significance of educational technology will finally be grasped, and the educational future will belong to us. How significant is educational technology? It could be said that if educational technology were medicine, health could be realized; if educational technology were engineering, ideal living space could be realized; if educational technology were law, peace could be realized. Educational technology as itself can realize the highest levels of cognition and affect in individuals – individuals who, in turn, will be able to create health, ideal space and peace.

To fulfill its dream, educational technology must reclaim its rightful place on the cutting edge constantly pushing upward to the next level of transformation, applying constructionism to what needs to be. While life on the cutting edge is, at best, uncomfortable, this is where the systemic, transformational field of educational technology must reside to realize its destiny.

## References

Becker, A.D. (1977). Alternative methodologies for instructional media research. *Audio-Visual Communication Review*, 25, No. 2,18 1-194.

Beckwith, D. (1984). *A research methodology for studying the learner as a total system: A conceptual paper*. Proceedings of Selected Research Paper Presentations. Research and Theory Division, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Ames, IA.

Beckwith, D. (1987). Group problem-solving via computer conferencing: The realizable potential. *Canadian Journal of Educational Communication*, 16(2), 89-106.

Beckwith, D. (1983, Fall). The nature of learners as total systems, with implications for research and instructional development: A theoretical/conceptual paradigm. *Journal of Visual Verbal Linguaging*, 9-28.

Bloom, B.S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. *Educational Researcher*, 13, 4-16.

Bratton, B. (1977, November). Instructional development and systems. *Audiovisual Instruction*, 22, 60.

Bratton, B. (1987, May). International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction. Paper presented at the annual conference of Professors of Instructional Design and Technology. Shawnee Bluffs, IN.

Caffarella, E.P., & Sachs, S.G. (1987, May). *Doctoral research in educational communication and technology: A directory of dissertations*. Paper presented
at the annual conference of Professors of Instructional Design and Technology. Shawnee Bluffs, IN.

Canclos, J. (1987, May). *Educational technology: Intelligent life beyond the college of education*. Paper presented at the annual conference of Professors of Instructional Design and Technology. Shawnee Bluffs, IN.

Clark, R.E. (1987, October), *Media and technology: Their present and future roles in education and training*. Paper presented to the Faculty of Educational Technology, Concordia University, Montreal.

Clark, R.E. (1984). "Where's the beef": A reply to Heinich. *Educational Communications and Technology Journal*, 32(4), 229-232.

Clark, R.E. (1978). Doctoral research training in educational technology. *Educational Communications and Technology Journal*, 26(2), 165-178.

Clark, R.E., & Snow, R.E. (1975). Alternative designs for instructional technology research. *Audio-Visual Communication Review*, 23(4), 373-394.

Davies, I. (1984). Instructional development: Themata, archetypes, paradigms and models. In R.K. Bass & C.R. Dills (Eds.), *Instructional development: The state of the art, IL* (pp. 9-17). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Davies, I. (1978). Prologue: Educational technology: Archetypes, paradigms, and models. In J. Hartley, & I. Davies (Eds.), *Contributions to an Educational Technology*. London: Butterworths.

Ego (1987). *Groupthink: Consciousness*. Conferencing System (CoSy). Guelph, ON: University of Guelph.

Finn, J.D. (1955). A look at the future of AV communication. *Audio-Visual Communication Review*, 3(4),244-256.

Finn, J.D. (1964). The Franks had the right idea. *NEA Journal*, 53(4), 24-27.

Gentry, C.G., & Trimby, MJ. (1984). Interface analysis of ID systems. In R.K. Bass & C. R. Dills (Eds.), *Instructional development: The state of the art, II* (pp. 94-107). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Goldman, H.D. (1984). Instructional system development in the United States Air Force. In R.K. Bass & C. R. Dills (Eds.), *Instructional development: The state of the art, II* (pp. 470-495). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of educational technology. *Educational Communications and Technology Journal*, 32(2), 67-87.

Hlynka, D., & Nelson, B. (1985). Educational technology as metaphor. *Programmed Learning and Educational Technology Journal*, 22(1) 7-15.

Koetting, J.R. (1983). Philosophical foundations of instructional technology. *Proceedings of Selected Research Paper Presentations* (pp. 416-440).
Ames, IA: Research and Theory Division, Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Middendorf, J., & Coleman, S. (1987, August). The 1987 PIDT Conference. *Newsletter of and Instruction*. Paper presented at the annual conference of Professors of Instructional Design and Technology. Shawnee Bluffs, IN.

Davies, I. (1978). Prologue: Educational technology: Archetypes, paradigms, and models. In J. Hartley, & I. Davies (Eds.), *Contributions to an Educational Technology*. London: Butterworths.

Ego (1987). *Groupthink: Consciousness*. Conferencing System (CoSy). Guelph, ON: University of Guelph.

Finn, J.D. (1955). A look at the future of AV communication. *Audio-Visual Communication Review, 3*(4),244-256.

Finn, J.D. (1964). The Franks had the right idea. *NEA Journal, 53*(4), 24-27.

Gentry, C.G., & Trimby, MJ. (1984). Interface analysis of ID systems. In R.K. Bass & C. R. Dills (Eds.), *Instructional development: The state of the art*, II (pp. 94-107). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Goldman, H.D. (1984). Instructional system development in the United States Air Force. In R.K. Bass & C. R. Dills (Eds.), *Instructional development: The state of the art*, II (pp. 470-495). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of educational technology. *Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 32*(2), 67-87.

Hlynka, D., & Nelson, B. (1985). Educational technology as metaphor. *Programmed Learning and Educational Technology Journal, 22*(1) 7-15.

Koetting, J.R. (1983). Philosophical foundations of instructional technology. *Proceedings of Selected Research Paper Presentations* (pp. 4 16-440). Ames, IA: Research and Theory Division, Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Middendorf, J., & Coleman, S. (1987, August). The 1987 PIDT Conference. *Newsletter of the Division for Instructional Development, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 17*(1), 3-4.

Rossett, A. (1987, May). *Forces affecting the development of the Department Of Educational Technology at San Diego State University*. Paper presented at the annual conference of Professors of Instructional Design and Technology. Shawnee Bluffs, IN.

Salomon, G., & Clark, R.E. (1977). Reexamining the methodology of research on media and technology in education. *Review of Educational Research, 47*,99-120.

Silber, K.H. (1970). What field are we in, anyhow? *Audio-Visual Instruction, 21*-(24).
Silber, K.H. (1978). Problems and needed directions in the profession of educational technology. *Educational Communications and Technology Journal*, 26(2), 174-185.

Torkelson, G.M. (1977). AVCR - One quarter century: Evolution of theory and research. *Audio-Visual Communication Review*, 25(4),317-358.

Torkelson, G.M. (1987). Perspective: Theoretical bases for research in media. *Canadian Journal of Educational Communication*, 16(1), 3-9.

Torkelson, G.M. (1980, April). *Research symposium*. A paper presented to the Research and Theory Division of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, CO.

Winn, W. (1986). Trends and future directions in educational technology research from a North American perspective. *Programmed Learning and Educational Technology Journal*, 23(4), 346-355.

AUTHOR

Don Beckwith is Visiting Associate Professor of Educational Technology at Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, PQ H3G 1MB. This paper was invited and therefore not subject to the normal review process.
# THE FUTURE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IS PAST

P. David Mitchell

First Published: Volume 18, No. 1, Winter 1989

Editor's Note: This is the third in a series of Invited articles that are published in CJEC In Number 1 of each new volume. These articles are Intended to serve as a mechanism for addressing the broader issues in educational communication and technology and for challenging our assumptions about the underlying nature and current state of our profession and the professional activities in which we engage. In this year's Perspective P. David Mitchell argues that the traps referred to by Beckwith (Perspective. 1988) are unavoidable and that in effect the promise of educational technology as envisioned by Beckwith and others is dead – killed largely by our inability or unwillingness to examine the underlying tenets of our own behavior and to affect change in the processes and practices that have become the field of educational technology. We must adopt a new perspective on the process of learning, the process of teaching and the process of doing research, he argues, If we are to revive the corpse before it is buried by someone else.

## Prologue

Educational technology appears to be a successful field. Graduates are in high demand, working primarily in industrial training and the formal education system. Salaries and opportunities for advancement apparently are good. New and promising equipment appears on the market regularly, awaiting our exploitation. Educational technology journals and conferences abound. People in traditional disciplines and professions are using some of our 'tricks of the trade' and fellow academics recognize the value of educational technology - in short, educational technology seems to be in its prime and enjoying good health. What, then is the meaning of the title?

This paper is an attempt to share my concern about the value of the field of educational technology to our society, especially to those currently in school and university, and to the global society within which we function. It also is an
attempt to expand upon the cogent analysis and hopeful prescription of Beckwith (1988), an expansion which will show the impossibility of escaping the traps which he describes. I write as an insider, one who has devoted two decades to helping fulfill Kenneth Richmond's prediction that "educational technology is destined to emerge as the central humane discipline of the future" (Richmond, 1967, p. 106). And I write as one who has worked within the philosophical and systemic perspective that Beckwith insists we adopt, as well as within a graduate programme preparing educational technologists.

Despite my frequent attempts to maintain a balanced perspective on issues, I'm not always antifloccinaucinihilipilificationistically inclined. So it is with regret that I now conclude that educational technology has no future because it is dead (though not yet buried). Any hope for its resuscitation is likely to be misplaced because there is so little understanding of why it died. I hope that this postmortem analysis will reduce our lack of understanding and perhaps contribute to a new life.

In preparing this paper I attempted to raise many questions and to suggest few answers. Moreover, I am aware that most complex problems have many solutions – or none – and that suggested answers are not final. Some comments are deliberately provocative and are intended to stimulate critical discussion; others appear so in the absence of elaboration.

To illustrate, I intend to show that we have failed to tackle the most pressing educational problems and have settled for routine applications more characteristic of a craft. Moreover we have developed virtually no theoretical models (those we use tend to be borrowed) nor do we produce graduates who are likely to do so. The underlying reasons are complex but center on our adopting a world view that is, if not obsolete, incomplete and useless for understanding the complex problems that need to be solved. Many have argued that we need a new paradigm but this calls for each of us to transform ourselves. We lack the requisite psychotechnology to make this easy. Paradoxically we need this paradigm in order to acquire it.

## The Future Of Educational Technology

In his paper portraying the Future of Educational Technology, Beckwith argues that, "If we are to survive, purposefully, as the cutting-edge field of our original vision, there are some solution-related traps that must be avoided" (Beckwith, 1988, p. 8). These he classifies as the traps of "compromised integrity"; "status quo adherence" and "solidification."

In the first trap, we are distracted from actually achieving our educational goals by, for example, dazzling products, pursuit of money, or our employer's goals. In the second, we seek credibility by emulating established professions inertia. Thus we avoid recommending significant changes in any educational system which employs us to solve a problem. And our notion of acceptable
research or conferences is governed by the norms established by others (e.g., psychology).

In the trap of solidification, “The energy needed to apply the intellectual techniques of educational technology to the betterment of humankind has been sapped by solidification within the mode of short-term survival” (Beckwith, 1988, p. 13). The purpose of educational technology becomes lost within the mists of routine applications of standard (though not necessarily valuable) procedures. Thus graduate programmes focus on instructional design and research comes “close to solidification as an inappropriate and limited method of inquiry. The cementing of reductionist, conclusion-oriented, static, systematic research models precludes the needed study and realization of systemic entities” (p. 14). Is there any hope? Beckwith thinks so.

His solution is deceptively simple. We need to publicly proclaim our goal to be “the transformation of learners and learning processes” and we need to transform our field into a systemic field which itself could become “the personal learning environment of your dreams – rich, vibrant, alive, dynamic, accelerating-an environment in which... research and development, production and dissemination, and teaching and learning are fused so tightly together that transformation is activated and reactivated (Beckwith, 1988, p. 17). Having suggested similar ideas myself (Mitchell, 1970; 1971; 1975; 1978; 1982) I must admit that this vision is appealing. But is it realistic?

## Actions Speak Louder Than Words

These are not traps to be avoided; they are symptoms of incurable terminal illness. Moreover, the problem is not confined to educational technologists. For most organizations that employ educational technologists, education is no longer the system's purpose; what happens to students is just a by-product of the activity of its professional and bureaucratic core. This is a startling comment to which I'll return later.

Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps what some of us are doing ought not to be done at all? And other things might be accomplished better by technicians, paraprofessionals and sundry other assistants. How are we to prepare ourselves for future developments (e.g., in micro-electronics, political struggles for declining budgets, cybernetics) when we don't even know what to anticipate? Are some of us failing to do what ought to be attempted and, if so, how do we identify the requisite capability in order to transform the field and to prepare new practitioners of educational technology to undertake these important tasks?

Earlier I asserted that in most organizations that employ educational technologists *education is no longer the system's purpose*; what happens to students is just a by-product of the activity of its professional and bureaucratic core. What do I mean? Simply put, a system's purpose can be better discerned
by asking what the system *is doing*, not what it was intended to do or what its spokesmen claim it's doing.

Typically, the system's core is devoted to self-perpetuation of their roles and functions (no matter how well-meaning the people are). What they do defines the system's purpose (cf: Beer, 1986). Thus, teaching becomes defined by philosophers and teachers as what teachers do regardless of whether students learn or even attend school (truancy rates run as high as 30% in some places). Health care becomes defined as what doctors provide (despite findings that nearly half the medical problems may be produced by doctors). Education is defined as happening in schools and colleges despite the prevalence of near illiteracy and limited knowledge or skills amongst students and even graduates. And what about educational technology? There is a dangerous precedent for defining it as what practitioners do; function becomes purpose.

Is this radical approach to purpose reasonable? How realistic is it to think that education is a high priority in the typical school or university? If a visiting scientist from Mars were to visit your institution and attempt to infer that system's purpose by observing how people spend their time and how money is allocated, would he infer education to be its primary purpose? Or would he take the extreme view that, "Universities are machines created by their gods, the faculty, primarily to provide them with the quality of work life they desire. Education of students is the price they must pay for this privilege. Teaching is largely devoted to inculcating students with a vocabulary that enables them to speak authoritatively on subjects they do not understand" (Gharajedaghi & Ackoff, 1985, p. 22). These authors go on to conclude that, "Schools in general, and universities, colleges and departments in particular are organized bureaucratically, that is, mechanistically. They strongly resist innovation. They restrain their employees with rigid rules and regulations." (Gharajedaghi & Ackoff, 1985, p. 23).

Let me give you a humorous but true example which illustrates my point that its purpose is what a system *does*. A Ph.D. student registered at a certain American university filled out an application form and indicated her first languages were Arabic, Armenian, English, French and Turkish. Later, when the second language requirement for the Ph.D. had to be satisfied - an educational objective intended to guarantee that the student could read work written in another tongue - she was told that since all of these were first languages she must take a second language. Undaunted, she pointed out that computer languages could count and she knew both COBOL and FORTRAN. Equally undaunted, bureaucracy said that they did not count because she had studied them as an undergraduate and already had received credit for them. So she had to study and pass an exam in German! "What is the point?," you may wonder. Just this: too frequently educational technologists behave unwittingly like this bureaucrat.
We do so when we try to improve the operation of an existing system without considering its actual and intended purpose; (Do your administrators and colleagues *really act* as if education were the prime purpose of your school, college or training unit? Does the Ministry of Education? Do your students? Do you? Would your time be better spent doing something else?)

We do so when we try to operationalize important educational intentions by composing and writing behavioral objectives, the sum of which falls short of the envisioned end-stage (e.g., the “good doctor” or the “good educational technologist” is a person who is far more than the component objectives of his professional courses).

We do so when we decide that we will produce a film or a series of TV programmes and look around for a topic rather than looking for an educational problem that needs to be solved and undertaking analysis to see which media/methods/content mix is most propitious.

We do so when we design so-called individualized instruction that fails to take into account the idiosyncratic background and learning styles of students and the network structure of knowledge in the discipline that would allow a student to build better conceptual links between what he knows and what he needs to know.

We do so when we design research projects that contribute little or nothing to the theory or practice of education but simply show our prowess as surveyors or experimenters.

And most pertinent here, we do so when we think a common preparation for educational technologists would look like the course of study we followed. What is the intended purpose of a system that produces educational technologists? What kind of person do we hope to turn out and what will that person need to know, believe, hope, fear, love and do? Expressed otherwise, what can an educational technology program do for society?

## The Challenge To Educational Technology

Educational technology must be dedicated to the efficiency of education as a whole and not simply to specific operations. An operational and philosophical analysis of educational technology, calls for a consideration of overall problems of education which educational technologists may be able to tackle before proceeding to the lower-order problem of designing a curriculum for them. The field of educational technology – in its concern for the optimal organization of education – must not be limited to time-honoured structures. Nor should it perpetuate failures. We might serve our stewardship better by devising activities and forming environments which permit people to live fully and intensely both within and outside so-called educational institutions.

While rich countries provide tax-supported schooling for 12 to 20 years, half the world's children cannot attend school. This paradox underscores the
need for change. The world's education system grinds on, consuming ever increasing amounts of money in response to demand for educational services regardless of whether education is the outcome. But school costs in both affluent and penurious nations rise more rapidly than enrollments or national incomes. No country in the world can afford to satisfy its educational needs by schooling alone. Does educational technology offer any hope?

The Sisyphean educational imperative is to provide access to stored human experience - ideas, knowledge, skills - and opportunities to develop what is needed for personal and cultural development.

Enormous problems must be solved if mankind as a whole is to share in the potential for human comfort, achievement and eudaemonia now restricted to a tiny minority. To refurbish our ideas about how to implement man's educational aspirations we need to develop the requisite theory and practice of educational technology along the lines suggested by Beckwith, but going much farther. Then educational technology can achieve the lofty ideals ascribed to by many of us.

The concept of lifelong education provides an altered perspective of profound significance for educational technology. Changing from dedication to efficiency of instructional activities to dedication to the effectiveness of human existence - which is what education entails - may reflect less a change in intellectual and communications technology than in priorities. But it calls for a new paradigm too.

*Education* refers to certain activities concerned with the intentional organization of ideas and learning opportunities by which successive generations are encultured and trained to sustain themselves and contribute to society. Continuing education presents two challenges. How can each nation enhance its collective intellectual capacity and skills? How can each person develop his personality and meet his educational and cultural aspirations?

Two currents of thought, the one emphasizing education as a productive investment for development of society and the other emphasizing personality development need to be combined. What is the scope of education today?

## What Is An Educational Problem?

If educational technology is to contribute to the solution of educational problems, we must first come to grips with the scope and purpose of education. Educational technology then may be in a position to identify worthwhile solutions.

The essence of technology, and therefore educational technology, is knowledge about relationships. Thus if we perform action X, there is a probability, P, that a given outcome, Y will occur. Alas in education and training it seldom is clear what action X is most likely to produce the intended result Y, especially without also producing unintended and conflicting outcomes. Moreover, Y is seldom unambiguous and confounds different, even
incompatible, goals (e.g., attempting to optimize the state of interacting subsystems). Recall that the term education incorporates at least two different concepts; the personal experiences of someone coming to understand or appreciate or reflect upon the world; and the organized attempt to produce those experiences in a number of other persons. How can we optimize both? (Operational research holds some promise for systemic analysis in this area but we have yet to see much in the way of results.)

## *The Scope of Education*

An educational problem may be far greater than the restricted vision of many observers. Thus an instructional design problem may be considered in isolation but the instructional system itself is embedded in an organization (school, corporation) that has other subsystems with different goals, priorities and resources that interact with it. And this organization, in turn, is embedded with other interacting subsystems in a larger system. To complicate matters even more, each learner has his/her own system of knowledge, values, goals, etc.

In short, the notion of an educational problem or system should be expanded to include more systems and subsystems. And the boundaries between activities that are labeled educational and those that are not, should be pushed back to encompass informal as well as directed learning. Think for a moment about where you learned most of your attitudes, knowledge and skills. Was it exclusively, or even largely, within institutions labeled educational? Our classical methods of dealing with educational problems cannot be expected to be of much use in tackling such systemic problems.

## *A Larger Perspective*

The world is in a critical phase of its evolution. Astonishing changes in micro-electronics and information technology presage new structures in many areas. We are promised that robots will produce half of our manufactured goods, displace human labour (including cheap in the third world) and send countless adults back to school. The opportunity for untold wealth is nigh; so is the possibility of disaster. Various reports suggest that continuous education soon will be a form of universal occupation. Opportunities for educational technology seem endless. Yet most people in the world live in the stick age; they get their energy from burning sticks and their life style centres on hand hoe agriculture. Their children die from malnutrition and disease (both of which are linked to poverty as well as to inadequate education) or military action. They strive for self-sufficiency constrained by their environment. We, in Canada, confront what some fear could herald a return to that life style (insofar as massive unemployment might reduce our economy to a shambles) and others hope could offer a culturally rich and personally rewarding life style. Surely
there are real and challenging problems for us to attack. Perhaps, as Schwen suggests, "Our conceptual process traditions will be the most sustaining or enduring approach to solving problems" (1988, p. 25).

Our leaders in government, industry and education face many complex, inter-locking problems and possibilities. We are immersed in an era of unprecedented changes in what is possible and in the physical and psychological environment as a result of our decisions. Perhaps most significant is the increasing rate of change. We have just become accustomed to the silicon chip and now must adapt to a protein chip that promises to increase the density of a chip by 100,000 times. Add to this the possibility of neural net computers. Can we even conceive of the potential impact of such a development on education and training? The need for educational technology (in Beckwith's sense) has never been greater. Yet educational technology probably cannot be revived to tackle these complex problems. Computer scientists will be asked to do so.

## Toward A Systemic Perspective

### *The Input-Output Model*

Most definitions of educational technology assert that it is concerned with applying knowledge, systems and techniques to improve the process of human learning. But virtually all educational technology research and applications have attempted instead to improve instruction, especially through information display systems and clarification of objectives as observables. Even interactive systems over-rely on information retrieval and display rather than responding to what the learner understands about the subject. Educational technology has turned the learner into a programmable machine rather than developing support systems to improve the quality of learner/subject matter interactions. This is primarily because we have failed to reject the notion that teaching causes learning and adhere to a simple cause-effect paradigm.

If we consider the various paradigms that have influenced educational technology, we see that they have been analytic and reductionistic even though different on the surface. Whether we consider the audio-visual, behavioural, neo-behavioural or cognitive models, all treat the learner as an input-output system which somehow responds to information displays by means of (potentially) measurable changes in capability. When we notice differences in learners' behaviour we attempt to relate these to factors under our control (e.g., message design, reinforcers) or uncontrolled variables (e.g., internal vs. external locus of control, gender, learning strategy).

For each of these paradigms the over-riding problem is how the educational system ought to work, both in general and specifically for an identifiable group of learners. This, in turn, leads to the notion that some human being (e.g.,
educational technologists, trainers, teachers) are expected to apply these
causative factors (objectives, advance organizers, instructional materials,
rewards or punishments) to other human beings. This is not as simple in practice
as one might wish.

Experimental research controls the influence of the environment in order to predict events; a complex, adaptive environment confounds such models. Thus if we perform action X, not only is there a probability of outcome Y but this action, in turn, generates a cascade of events, some of which may alter X- and thereby alter Y - until the loop is broken. The traditional cause-effect model is useful only up to a point. The environment-free concept of explanation fails to provide an understanding of complex systems of the sort that educators deal with. But there is another problem with the cause-effect model.

Goal-Directed Feedback

What does it mean to be “in control?” In order for a teacher or instructional
system to teach (i.e., to control a student’s behaviour) the controller must be
able to generate or select a desired outcome (e.g., a set of behavioural
objectives), discriminate between what is observed to happen and what is
intended to happen, and select actions which reduce the discrepancy. This is
easier to imagine with a human teacher or computer aided learning than with a
book or television program but the principle still applies in a modified form.

The model case is a control system designed by an engineer. He knows that there is a control system and knows what it controls. Moreover, he knows that the controlled system can be controlled because of the way it is designed. In other words, the controlled (cf. Powers, 1973). While this may be appropriate for inanimate systems, how useful is it when considering humans? Are we justified in using two models of human behaviour, one for those who control and one for the persons being controlled?

In most educational technology research and practice this seems to be
exactly what happens. Perhaps this trap is a legacy from psychological research
where the experimenter is presumed to be controlling the organism's behaviour
(despite the dim awareness, albeit in cartoons, that the rat pressing a lever is
controlling the food-giving behaviour of the psychologist). Or perhaps it is a
legacy from the days of birch and leather teaching aids. Control theory offers an
escape from this trap.

Control System Theory

Control theory seems to have originated four decades ago though its roots
are ancient. Norbert Wiener's (1948) seminal work on cybernetics introduced a
new paradigm for understanding human nature, indeed all organisms, whether
we view them as agents or objects of control. Cybernetics, he showed, was
concerned with control in, not control of, the organism or machine. Because "control" sounds manipulative, even authoritarian, we may wish to substitute "regulation" for it. But control theory has emerged as the theory of systems which control rather than a theory of how to control other systems. The distinctions not as subtle as the wording might suggest. Indeed the fundamental ideas of control theory have the potential to produce the transformation in our thinking about education, indeed of society, that Beckwith insists is needed. More important it can alter our own perspective on education.

In the first place, if we begin to take into account the controlling behaviour of the people previously thought of only as objects to be controlled, whether in experiments, in the classroom or by a computer tutor, we immediately can see that learners' ability to control themselves is essential to education. Moreover, the fundamental observable is not the simple cause-effect sequence initiated by the controller but the reciprocal control of each by the other.

This reciprocal communication and control "dialogue" may be verbal or mediated in some way but as long as it continues we can think of the two persons as coupled together to form a new system which develops its own characteristic behaviour. Whether or not this resembles the intended outcome of either controlling subsystem is problematical.

Let-me illustrate. If you were asked by someone to explain or teach something to him, what would you do? Would you establish performance objective, devise a special sequence of statements to make to him, or insist on special audiovisual displays? What would you look for in order to infer that he understands you?

I conjecture that you might ask him to explain, evaluate or use the relevant knowledge or perhaps to criticize it. You might ask if he has any questions. I doubt if your conversation would be punctuated by multiple choice questions or monosyllabic responses. I suspect you would probe for evidence of his grasping related concepts or principles. In short, you would function as a supportive conversational system, building on this student's strengths, clarifying misconceptions and linking it into a rich, intricately connected conceptual structure. In the end, both you and the learner have learned something about one another and the subject.

Why do designers of so-called interactive video/CAL systems seldom address these fundamental issues? They proceed instead to present more and more information based on an exceedingly crude inference system that seldom constructs a model of the learner's understanding or permits dialogue. "Right" and "wrong" responses often determine what happens next. But knowledge is more than information. It is complex, relativistic and open to interpretation.

The act of reaching a shared understanding involves agreement (e.g., on explanations, derivations) that one's perception of what the other is saying is an adequate representation of one's own concepts. In short, the structure of
knowledge represented by the subject matter expert (as presented through verbal or other media) appears to be congruent with the learner's knowledge structure insofar as they both can perform similar operations of derivation, explanation, identification of counter-examples, application, etc. This dialogue demonstrates reciprocal control by two yoked systems. Such reproducible conceptual representations may be called understanding; a sequence of understandings defines a conversation or, in an educational context, a tutorial (cf. Pask, 1976). Our computer-based tutoring systems have yet to achieve this level of dialogue but eventually may approximate it (Mitchell, 1988).

Now consider the possibility that an instructional system is intended to control or regulate the (educational) behaviour of a large number of students simultaneously. One model case is the teacher in a classroom discussion with 25 or more students, each of whom may attempt to control the behaviour of others (as well as themselves). Except under very special circumstances the teacher cannot control the verbal, not to mention the internal behaviour of her students; each responds to others as well as to internal factors. Another model case is the provincial education system which stipulates a set of intended learning outcomes for all students in a particular age group, regardless of individual differences in general or specific knowledge, motivation, etc. and heedless of differences in teachers, learning resources, etc. The typical approach to instructional control is to restrict the student's alternatives (rather than to enhance his possibilities).

Even more compelling is the implication of control systems theory that there are fundamental organizing principles in living systems and organizations whereby the observed behaviour is simply the process by which these systems control their sensory input. In other words, the purpose of a system's action is to control the state of its perceived world. This also has some interesting implications for the actions of the researcher as observing system and we must recognize that the observing and the observed system interact; there can be no objective observer.

## *The Cybernetic Systems Age*

The complexity of inter-related systems with many feedback loops requires us to develop new tools to cope with them. Some relevant tools appear to exist within the trans-disciplinary domain of cybernetics and general systems research.

One of the most impressive aspects of conferences about cybernetics and general systems research is that experts from disciplines as diverse as anthropology and economics, engineering and family therapy, medicine and psychology, natural science and philosophy not only share a meta-discipline that amplifies and transcends their own specialty but also feel no compunction in tackling the most challenging and vital problems of the day... believing sincerely
that they have, in cybernetics, a powerful inter-disciplinary weapon for solving
the most baffling social, economic, and political problems of civilization
(Robinson & Knight, 1972, p. 2).

What is the most important attribute of their approach? Central to the cybernetic or systemic approach is that it considers the *total system*, with all its interacting elements, as one inseparable organism. This holistic approach represents a paradigm shift from the reductionistic approach which we have inherited from the logical positivist movement. Though the holistic perspective has a strong intellectual background, the word “holism” was invented only in 1925 by Smuts who wrote, “Instead of the animistic, or the mechanistic, or the mathematical universe, we see the genetic, organic holistic universe” (Smuts, 1925).

Synthetic thinking is needed (in addition to analytic) to explain or understand system behaviour. A system is essentially an observer's model which attempts to link a set of inter-related entities or their attributes into a coherent pattern, one that is perceived to cohere and to be distinct from other entities. This model can be physical, mathematical, verbal or procedural. And the system represented may be physical or conceptual. Indeed it could be argued that all models are fundamentally conceptual and that epistemological issues (e.g., What shall count as information? How can knowledge be represented most usefully?) are central.

The performance of a system as a whole is different from the performance of all its parts. As Gharajedaghi and Ackoff point out, "A system is a whole that cannot be divided into independent parts; the effects of the behaviour of the parts on -the whole depend on the behaviour of other parts. Therefore, the essential properties of a system are lost when it is taken apart... and the parts themselves lose their essential properties" (1985, p. 23). Thus analysis cannot lead to understanding of the system as a whole.

Analysis is very useful for revealing its structure, how it works, but not why it works. Systemic thinking is needed to understand why the system functions as it does. Such synthetic thinking means that we must conceptualize a system as part of one or more larger systems. This calls for seeking understanding of the larger system which, in turn, may be explained in terms of its function in yet another system. This expansionist approach, in contradistinction to the reductionist approach, assumes that ultimate understanding can be approached but that it flows from larger systems to smaller rather than the reverse. Obviously, environmental problems frequently are involved. So are systems that may be called purposeful and human.

Wiener's (1948) use of "cybernetics" to denote the science of control and communications in the animal and the machine, can be restated to omit communications because communications is simply the vehicle for control. Moreover we have seen that regulation maybe a less offensive and misleading
word. Thus cybernetics is concerned with regulation (i.e., the achievement of goals and objectives of some entity). As Robinson and Knight (1972) conclude, "the central problem remains optimization of the organization and operations of the organism itself to maximize achievement of its goals and objectives" (p. 5). Moreover, "Any lack of understanding of the nature of this total systems approach results in focus on individual parts of the whole, inability to find much new in cybernetics, and skepticism that cybernetics can add anything worthwhile (p. 5).

In considering the total system, with interacting systems and subsystems, as one inseparable organism, cyberneticians deny the validity (for a complete solution) of optimizing a component subsystem separately. "The approach insists that the analysis be *comprehensive* and *simultaneous*. Thus, it considers the total organism... maximizing achievement of its goals and objectives in its total environment" (Robinson & Knight, 1972, p. 5). But how do we manage this at the level of society, a university or even a class?

Cybernetics therefore makes possible, explanations of goal-seeking behaviour, whether in the human or in organizations. It also permits us to investigate how it is that successful complex systems regulate themselves, in the hope that we may discover principles that can be generalized (cf. Beer, 1986). Equally important for educational technology, we can investigate cybernetic systems with a view to finding out what people or computers are good at and what they are not, thus learning more about how to design expert systems or automated teaching/learning aids.

*Can We Redesign Societal Cybernetic Systems for Education?*

Our problem is not to portray ideal states of man in the manner of Plato's *Republic*. The best we can hope for, I suspect, is to find out how to regulate a system, in which we are interested, by holding it within its natural boundaries. That is, by monitoring the system's own changes of state as it responds automatically to environmental disturbances, we may be able to control it. On the other hand, if we try to monitor environmental changes we shall fail. Thus the input-output model is obsolescent.

As for our own organizations, Warfield offers this conclusion, "What is needed is the redesign of the decision-making, consensus-building machinery itself, deliberately and carefully employing cybernetic system principles and practices" (1985, p. 80). To do so requires that we design self-correcting cybernetic feedback loops into the structure itself if we wish to produce or manage a viable system (i.e., one that will survive). Beer (1986) offers a model.

Finally we need to recognize that the Conant-Ashby theorem states that the controlling system has to have (e.g., to contain or simulate) a model of the controlled system in order to be able to exert any regulatory control. In the context of educational technology, we must be able to have workable model of
our students, the organizations within which we work (or install our solutions), indeed, of our society within the global community. This is a mind-boggling task and our collective failure to do it is one of the reasons for the fatal illness of educational technology.

Perhaps some of us are predisposed to accepting a cybernetic or systemic world view; others may not be. But if educational technology is to become a viable enterprise, I think we will need a massive shift in this direction. Are we prepared? How can any of us acquire this new paradigm if we are not already part of it?

*Interaction Within and Between Complex Systems*

Beckwith's insistence on a systemic perspective is not misplaced even though his optimism maybe. When dealing with systems as complex as human systems at a global, or even an institutional level we must recognize and cope with the fact that everything interacts with everything else (at least in principle), thus in validating the traditional analysis and reduction of problems into isolated sub problems. This is not meant to be a banal statement.

C. West Churchman, a philosopher of science, expressed it thus:

> When we are dealing with systems as complex as human ones, we need to consider: That everything interacts with everything else, thus invalidating the traditional reduction of problems into separate sub problems; That the observer cannot be objective, thus necessitating the development and utilization of an observer-inclusive epistemology;

> That ethical and aesthetic variables must be explicitly and effectively integrated into the analysis, design, and decision-making process;

> That use of only quantitative data and model-based modes of inquiry is not satisfactory in analyzing and designing human systems; and

> That current cross-cultural and culturally specific measures of performance are semantically impoverished.

> In order to develop inquiring systems which will produce results that help to improve the human condition, new approaches, rather than mere extensions and refinements of old ones, are needed. We are convinced such approaches are now available and should be applied to the urgent problems we face (Churchman, n. d.).

Restated, we have to recognize that we cannot describe (e.g., in a mathematical model) any system whose behaviour we wish to regulate because the value of each component's contribution to the overall performance is a function of the current and past activities of all other components as well as of other systems in the environment. If we alter only one factor (or even several) to
which the system responds, we may not be able to predict or regulate the
outcome. At the cognitive level, virtually every concept is related to others
which, in turn, are linked more. But these maybe influenced by quite unrelated
events.

To illustrate, the academic performance of students may be influenced not
only be what the educational technologist does but also by many other factors,
(e.g., their genetic endowment, early nutrition and environmental stimulation,
previous exposure to information and opportunities to learn and solve problems,
psychological stress at home or with peers, blood sugar level, TV viewing,
whether or not the nation is at war or experiencing a depression, perception of
the subject matter and fellow students - or even of school itself - study skills
and decision to select and deploy them, proximity of exams, current events in
the community, or the presence and arrangement of specific textual and pictorial
messages embedded in salient media). Can we develop an explanatory model to
portray this?

To complicate matters, control system theory (Powers, 1973) shows that
even when we can relate observed behaviour to observed stimuli, we must
expect to be wrong most of the time! Yet our dominant research paradigm (and
that of psychology) shows no sign of change.

Control Theory: A New Paradigm For Behavioural Research

Suppose that a visiting scientist from Mars observes an earthling driving a
car and decides to investigate the relationship between driving behaviour and the
complex pattern of stimuli coming from a twisting, hilly road that is subject to
gusts of wind and snow. Suppose moreover, that with his sophisticated methods
he found that the stimulus pattern predicted the rate and amount of angular
rotation of the steering wheel. Would you be comfortable with this as an
explanation of driving behaviour? Or would you, as the driver, insist that in fact
it was your intention to drive in the centre of your lane and, because you were
successful at it, the visiting scientist failed to notice that there was no deviation
of the car's position from this reference trajectory. And if we accept your
operational definition of driving behaviour, controlling the perceived deviation
from the centre of the lane, then we should expect no relationship between this
essentially unobservable behaviour and the complex pattern of stimuli.

What is controlled then is controlled only because it is detected by a control
system, compared with a goal or reference, and affected by compensatory
behaviour based on the perceived discrepancy. Thus a control system controls
only its own sensory representation. In this case the control system is controlling
an internal representation of the position of the moving vehicle. But note that
what is controlled is defined strictly by the behaving system's perception and
sensory representation; it may or may not be identifiable as an entity in the
external milieu (cf. Powers, 1973). Therefore it may not be identifiable by an observer, especially if it is a perceived discrepancy.

As Powers shows, "In general an observer will not... be able to see what a control system is controlling. Rather, he will see an environment composed of various levels of perceptual objects reflecting his own perceptual organization and point of view (p. 233). What will he observe?" He will see events taking place, including those he causes, and he will see the behaving organism acting to cause changes in the environment and (his) relationship to the environment. The organism's activities will cause many changes the observer can notice, but what is controlled will only occasionally prove to be identical" with any of them (p. 233).

## Complexity Of Goals And Norms

To complicate matters for the observer (alias researcher or instructor), human behaviour is not confined to one controlled quantity nor is a fixed reference level the norm. A person, indeed any system, can have multiple objectives and variable reference levels, changing from one to another without warning.

Education, according to philosophers, is concerned with initiating students into instrumentally and intrinsically worthwhile activities. Embedded in this statement is the hint of a narrowly interpreted means-ends concept that seems to permeate educational technology. Let me explain.

We usually think of an end or objective as a positively valued outcome likely to result from some means selected with the intention of producing it. In educational technology the value of a means (e.g., teaching/learning method A or B) generally is equated with the probability of its producing an end. Criteria for selection are based on instrumental and cost/benefit decisions. On the other hand, the value of an end is taken to be intrinsic, rather than instrumental. Thus completing my degree may be an end and an educational technologist may use instrumental, extrinsic means to help me to achieve it. But for me, being graduated may be a means to a new job or higher income. And for the educational technologist, the selection of means may be related to personal ends (i.e., intrinsic value for him). In short, every end is also a means and vice versa; they are relative concepts.

Note, that preferences amongst means may not be based on efficiency but on intrinsic values of the educational technologist. Equally this is true of the student. Each may select means because they are satisfying. Now what if there exists a persistent preference for a particular kind of activity? (Anyone familiar with video game players has seen such behaviour.) Psychologists refer to these as traits. Half a century ago, Gordon Allport identified nearly 18,000 traits. So it is apparent that we can expect to find an exceedingly high variety of ends in any
observation of human behaviour except where nearly all of them are eliminated by virtue of the artificial environment of an experiment.

A final note. If we accept that every consequence to some activity is in turn a means to additional consequences, continuing to some ultimate consequence, then we might find an end that is intrinsically worthwhile. This is essentially a theoretical definition of an ideal. But it is likely that there are many routes to a given ideal and, equally, that a given means-ends activity could eventually be linked to more than one ideal. Given the complexity of human traits and the possibility of many ideals, it is no wonder that observers have considerable difficulty making sense of empirical observations of students' behaviour.

Thus the concept of behaviour as a feedback control process organized around one's perceptions has to be extended to include those perceptions that pertain to ends and means thought likely to maintain one's ideals.

How do we deal with the behaviour of a learner, whether in the laboratory or in the classroom? Are we to conclude that what is observed may not count, that the learner is behaving to reduce a discrepancy perceived by him – not by us – to exist between his current state and some desired state? If so, then it may be incumbent upon educational technologists not merely to have educational (or, more narrowly, behavioural) objectives but to attempt to share responsibility for these with the learner as a control system. More importantly, if we can ascertain the learner's objective we may be able to adapt our instructional activities to support him or her. Truly individualized instruction now might be possible.

## Self-Regulation For Self-Instruction

A closed chain of causal relationships may characterize the learner who is actively studying some subject. Control theory suggests that the learner's behaviour (of attending to and interacting with images and semantic information that may be perceived in the external or internal reference. Any discrepancy "produces" further behaviour intended to reduce this discrepancy, either by restructuring knowledge and images or by altering the goal. Such control cycles tend to continue until a limiting resource (e.g., time) is used up.

A profound insight reveals the most powerful aspect of feedback: the organism actually “causes” its own behaviour. Sometimes it does so in an environment designed to promote such learning, but educational technology lacks the sophistication needed to develop them. Moreover, the absence of universal reinforcers in educational settings underscores the observation (of such investigators as Kelly, Rogers or Snygg & Combs) that behaviour is a function of individuals’ personal frame of reference, their perception of themselves and their environment and the meanings they attribute to them. In cybernetic terms, the person’s behaviour controls their perception in relation to their intentions.
## Tutoring

Thus tutoring educational technology can shift from an input-output model to a control theory model dominated by feedback which the observing system uses to control its own behaviour and thereby to attempt to control the behaviour of another system. Note that feedback monitors goal-directed behaviour (i.e., the system begins with some desired state or goal which is compared with its perception of the actual state during or following a behaviour episode). In effect, environment is what the receptors and brain perceive (i.e., an internal representation). Not only objects and events, but also symbols and relations may be represented by these internal models. Internal events probably are represented in the same way and we assume that behaviour (overt or covert) acts on the inner as well as the outer environment.

Powers (1973) demonstrated that what we control is our own input; our behaviour is the means of control and the purpose of our students' action is to control their internal models of the perceived world. This is a powerful insight for educational technologists to exploit. It opens the door not only to design of intelligent CAL but also to the design of new organizational structures for education.

In a tutorial conversation, two cybernetic systems become coupled (until a resource, e.g., time or attention, is used up) to form a new interacting system in which each begins with goals that it attempts to satisfy by monitoring the effects of its own behaviour on the other. Similarly, an adaptive equilibrium occurs between a nation and its education system.

Instead of the input-output model, educational technology could conclude that behaviour is not so much a function of the environmental input as of a self-conscious "I" of each person in interplay not with his environment per se but with his perceptual model of that environment. The would-be regulator of all this, a human or an intelligent CAL system, mirrors the same process; the instructional system must have minimally a model of the subject matter, a model of the student's knowledge and conceptual style, and a model of communications and control strategies to respond to the student's behaviour (Mitchell, 1982).

What are the implications for educational technology if it's to be rejuvenated? If one's perceptual field determines his behaviour, it seems reasonable to conclude that educational technology has two options. We can continue to implement schemes that limit opportunities for individual differences, developing representations of knowledge that omit much of the richness of a subject in their emphasis on achievement of specifiable objectives in a limited time. Or we can recognize individual differences and attempt to promote the optimal development of each person, providing opportunities to extend the self regulatory capacity of the person both within a subject domain and in general.
To do this, the regulatory system itself will need trainmg. Thus each person, and educational technologists, must learn how to express models of their own activities that have sufficient alternative courses of action from which to choose. Once again I wonder if educational technology has the capacity to do this.

A cybernetic model of the learner, based on Stafford Beer's (1982; 1983; 1984) pioneering work, may prove useful. This model is consistent with research in psychology and education, but begins with a different perspective. At its heart is a perceptual field or set of relationships which determines that this is "oneself". Beer identifies the intrinsic regulatory mechanism that holds everything together, maintaining one's identity, and suggests that Education should enhance the regulatory variety of each person rather than delimit it (as often occurs). This injunction applies equally at the level of the person and society. Therefore, it may have resuscitating powers for educational technology.

## Oneself, Self - Control And The Enhancement Of Human Potential

If the purpose of one's action is to control the perceived world, a cybernetic model of oneself as learner deserves scrutiny. At its heart is a perceptual field or set of relationships which determines that this is "oneself." Think of a human being not as mind, body, spirit or social unit but as "an entire and interactive system." Oneself is an exceedingly complex, probabilistic system that maintains stability and integrity by virtue of an organizing principle, a set of relationships which determine that this is Oneself, not another self. Beer labels the intrinsic regulator which holds invariant the set of internal relationships that maintains the identity of Oneself, cybercyte.

## Goals and Their Achievement

The self-regulatory capacity of the body seems automatic but what if one aspires to be different (e.g., run a marathon, read 5,000 words per minute, solve a complex problem)? As Beer shows, such pursuits require extending the self-regulatory capacity of both body and mind (i.e., of the cybercyte). Thus I may have the potential to run a marathon or to read at 5,000 wpm or to solve that problem, but I lack the regulatory model required. If Oneself sets goals and aspires to achieve them, then Oneself must change one's model of oneself. Why? Because things one is only potentially capable of doing are not initially included in one's regulatory model. There is a spectrum of options from which to choose (e.g., actions, models, beliefs and aspirations).

Recall that the purpose of human action is to control the perceived world by comparing this model with an internal model of a desired end-state. It is essential therefore, that the person (whether learner, researcher, planner or educational technologist) establish a goal-state, believe it can be achieved and
will be achieved, and visualize oneself already in the goal state – and then to act accordingly. At this point the regulatory system should respond to perceived deviations from that goal.

Beer's concept of selfhood thus advocates self-improvement – and, by extension, education and societal improvement – based on the existence of autonomous regulatory mechanisms that permit self-control. However, the rules which govern the effectiveness of this self-control require the regulatory process to generate new states and detect and store patterns that can reduce discrepancies. Another principle is that “the recognized self exists within a potential self, the realization of which constitutes its fulfillment” (Beer, 1982, p. 20).

Beer (1984) has tested this model at various recursive levels of selfhood within the context of corporations, society and religion. Surely these principles both address the enhancement of human potential and lie at the core of learning and therefore educational technology. As Beer suggests, Education should enhance the student's regulatory capacity rather than delimit it. But educational technology traditionally has restricted students' regulatory capacity And our own.

## The Death Of Educational Technology

The preceding discussion of our self-regulatory capacity is central to my analysis of why educational technology cannot escape Beckwith's traps and the major reason for its demise.

Despite Beckwith's (and others') visions of educational technology's potential, the field itself is not a cybercyte and cannot have goals. Individuals can; so can organizations that are established for that purpose. But despite the existence of professional associations, there is no organizing principle that binds and regulates the research, practice and theory development which we identify as educational technology.

Therefore, Beckwith's insistence that educational technology transform itself is misplaced. We who think of ourselves as educational technologists may choose to transform ourselves and even attempt to transform others (e.g., students or colleagues). But even then we may need assistance, perhaps of a kind that does not now exist. We know little of control theory's regulatory models and how to alter the self-regulatory capacity of ourselves or others. Research is needed but who is capable of carrying it out? It may even be that this is one of the most crucial areas for instructional design if we wish to enhance human potential for learning how the world works and how to get along in it.

Graduate programmes in educational technology, too, need to be able to communicate relevant insights and research findings to students and, through continuing education and publications, to others. But how can they
communicate what they know little about, especially when so many courses address tactical issues at the level of instructional design and media production? Can graduate programmes be transformed along the lines suggested by Beckwith or any other way?

At the same time we function in collaboration with other systems whose perception of educational technology regulates their interaction with us. Do they perceive us to be competent?

## Needed: A Re-Orientation Of Focus

What stands in our way? Walt Kelly, the creator of the comic strip Pogo, had the main character say: We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Educational technology had a short life. By the 70's it had gained academic respectability and widespread acceptance in training circles. As with another new, transdisciplinary field, operational research, "Survival, stability and respectability took precedence over development" (Ackoff, 1979, p. 242). And following Ackoff, I, too, hold academic educational technology and the relevant professional societies responsible for the decline and fall of educational technology. I hasten to point out that I have been involved in both and therefore share this responsibility.

Consider for a moment what educational technology has contributed to ameliorating existing messes.

Which educational technologists or educational technology programmes have attempted to solve these common problems? (I omit the more complicating systemic implications here.) Reports abound of illiterate and innumerate students graduating from high school. Half the world's children do not go to school. One third of the adult population in the USA (and nearly as many in Canada) is functionally illiterate. Most schools teach children to use computers but not to touch-type so that they can use them more efficiently. Neither teachers nor schools nor ministries of education insist on improved methods of teaching and learning, to say nothing of radical transformation of the curriculum. Our socioeconomic future will require a massive shift in education (and training) just for survival. A typical educational technology course differs little (except in content) from other courses on campus.

Are educational technology professors or research students tackling such problems? What are the burning issues in educational technology graduate programmes?

Suppose a school of educational technology to be a system organized to produce practitioners for this field. If we were to analyze such a professional school using control theory, what might it look like? Recall that in ordinary behavioural situations the controlled quantity is not immediately obvious and that in a system that operates with the complexity and time span of a graduate programme we can expect a very large number of intended outcomes or
reference trajectories. Some of these might even be considered to be ideals. Moreover the professional school may attempt simultaneously to contribute to several related goals: to improve society (though its graduates' efforts to improve education); to improve educational systems; to help individuals to increase their knowledge and understanding; to excite in their students a desire and ability to learn and to solve problems.

To the external observer, all that is obvious is the relationship between various "disturbances" applied to the learners and some output of their reorganizing systems. Clearly we should expect to see a share division (amongst faculty if not students) of what is desirable but reports from several such programmes suggest that this is not always the case. Then, too, we might expect some creative approaches to the problems of teaching and learning.

For instance, one might test the hypothesis that, "An educational system should (1) facilitate students' learning what they want and need to learn, (2) enable them to learn how to learn more efficiently, (3) motivate them to want to learn" (Gharajedaghi & Ackoff, 1985, p. 24). One approach may be to assume that the best way to understand a system is to design it (or at least a model of it). To do so, students will need to learn how to solve problems, how to identify what they do not know, how to acquire what they need to know, how to use what they know.

Gharajedaghi and Ackoff suggest a radical departure from standard course-based graduate programmes: their principal instruments are learning cells and research cells which integrate faculty members and students who work jointly to integrate and extend theoretical themes and to design systems or to work on general theoretical, conceptual or methodological problems related to practical problems. The fundamental assumption is that graduate students do not need to be taught but may need guides and mentors. Such an approach clearly permits, indeed encourages, a systemic approach to identifying solving problems. Are we, in educational technology, willing to design radically different approaches to our curriculum and instruction system?

Though I may be mistaken, I think it is fair to say that most educational technology courses are taught by faculty members who have never, or hardly, practiced as educational technologists, except for occasional consulting. They – more accurately, we and our students are textbook-bound and use the language but not the experiences of dealing with real educational problems, whether we consider complex design problems or simple concepts. By real educational problems I refer not to needs analysis or product development for corporate training (which may indeed be important to the company) but to fundamental problems such as illiteracy, innumeracy, intolerance or lack of caring. To illustrate, I am struck by the blind faith which most of my students have placed in textbook definitions of central concepts, including, for example, "learning." I refer to books which repeat the silly statement that learning is a relatively permanent change in behaviour (as if behaviour of a complex organism is
confined to what the observer noted, and - moreover - remains static after
learning, thus prohibiting further learning). When asked about their own-
learning experiences such students invariably discuss the concept from a very
different perspective, one that is conceptually more useful and defensible. I
detect a similar withholding of common sense too frequently in journal articles
and textbooks. Something is wrong.

Perhaps because of our being trapped in a state of emulation of an out-of-
date model of science borrowed from psychology, our journals and professional
meetings fail, too, to come to grips with very real educational problems. Who is
writing (in the educational technology literature) about the messes which we
find all about us in the vast domain of education and training?

Is there any hope? Where can we go from here? I am tempted to liken our
situation to that of the traveler who asked a farmer how to get to his destination; the
farmer replied, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here." But where can we start
from?

Future Planning

Some of us in this disparate field have attempted to act and write as if it
were possible to predict future behaviour of a system if only we knew all the
cause-effect relations that apply to it. Then, according to this viewpoint, we can
design, produce and install some instructional system or materials in such a way
as to produce the intended behaviour. Aside from the lack of insight into control
system theory which this paradigm reflects, it also fails to take into account the
fundamental fact that we operate within constraints that limit our choice just as
our clients' choices are limited. Perhaps the most constraining of all is the
system within which we function as critical components.

For those in academic educational technology, George Grant warns, "We are
unable seriously to judge the university without judging its essence, the curriculum; but
since we are educated in terms of that curriculum it is guaranteed that most of us will
judge it as good. The criteria by which we could judge it as inadequate in principle can
only be reached by those who through some chance have moved outside society... (but
then) one's criticisms will not be taken seriously" (Grant, 1968, p. 67). Surely it is this
curriculum which has schooled us to believe that certain kinds of theses, publications or
papers are somehow more acceptable (albeit to promotion and tenure committees) than
others. Research productivity is an ambiguous concept. What counts as research?

The research required to ameliorate some of the pressing educational messes will
take many years with little to show for it. What university would give tenure to the
modem equivalent of the young Isaac Newton? "To arrive at the simplest truth, as
Newton knew and practiced, requires years of contemplation. Not activity. Not
reasoning. Not calculating. Not busy behaviour of any kind. Not reading. Not talking.
Not making an effort. Not thinking. Simply bearing in mind what one needs to know
(Brown, 1969, p. 110). For tackling complex educational problems such "bearing in
mind' certainly is consistent with control system theory even if it is not with contemporary education or our universities. I suspect that this applies to training departments also.

How can those of us who prepare future educational technologists do what is necessary to support these learners in more sustained groping, exploration, synthesis and evaluation as part of their attempts to identify and solve important educational problems? What do we need to contemplate ourselves in order to provide such support? Is research and development in the area of intelligent tutoriig systems a useful direction or a dead end? How can we even identify what we need to know so that we may bear it in mind? And how to help our students to do likewise?

One thing is clear to this observer; the corpse called educational technology appears to have died because it lacked a cybernetic systemic paradigm and an organizing principle to give it life as a viable system dedicated to improving education. And even though this field cannot itself easily be a viable system it can contain many viable systems which could even cohere to form such a metasystem. One such component system could be you; I could be another. If we all work together we may just be able to save educational technology and thereby education. But we shall all have to struggle with our regulatory systems. This will require allocation of scarce resources to do the job resources such as care, creativity, commitment and love. Perhaps these are the only assets educational technology has left.

## Conclusion

We may be able to revive the corpse of educational technology but not without a radical transformation in a number of inter-related domains: our professional associations; our graduate programmes preparing future practitioners; our schools, colleges, universities and ministries of education; our media of mass communication; our governments; our corporations; our society and - most important ourselves.

Albert Rosenfeld expressed our educational need thus: "In any planning of society, the structure and function of educational institutions (with education soon to encompass a lifetime) will be at the heart of it; and we are less likely to go wrong in our choices if we keep in mind what it is all to be designed for: the whole human being and his fulfillment in a regulated but free society."

"The educational establishment's major challenge will be to turn out people of high quality; people capable of constantly improving the quality of their own lives and interested in improving the lives of others; people who possess the necessary technical know-how, intellectual prowess, sensory awareness, personal and social responsibility to face cheerfully the unending ambiguities of the new age; people who are incapable of bestiality toward their fellow men, who have no use for personal power unless it offers an opportunity to enhance the quality of life on earth for all mankind" (Rosenfeld, 1969, P. 311-3 12).

To this I would add that these paragons will need a solid foundation in cybernetics and system thinking as well as in the relevant design sciences. Such
educational engineers are likely to become very valuable members of society -
if we are able to help prepare them.

If our graduate programmes in educational technology, inter alia, can turn
out such men and women then we shall realize Kenneth Richmond's prediction
(that this will become *the* central humane discipline of the future) and
Beckwith's dream that we will help "to create health, ideal space and peace."
The last reported resurrection required only three days. How long will it take to
resuscitate and transform educational technology?

References

Ackoff, R. L. (1979). The Future of operational research is past. *Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30* (2), 93-104.

Beckwith, D. (1988). The future of educational technology. *Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 17*(1), 3-20.

Beer, S. (1986). *Diagnosing the system for organizations*. Toronto, ON: Wiley.

Beer, S. (1982). *Man in a garrulous silence*. Unpublished manuscript.

Beer, S. (1983). The will of the people. *Journal of the Operational Research Society, 34*(5), 797-S 10.

Beer, S. (1984). *The cybernetics of selfhood*. Plenary address to Seventh European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vienna.

Brown, G. S. (1969). *Laws of form*. London: George Allen and Unwin

Grant, George (1968). *The university curriculum*. In H. Adelman & D. Lee (Ed.) *The university game*. Toronto: Anansi.

Gharajedaghi, J., & Ackoff, R. L. (1985). Toward systemic education of systems scientists. *Systems Research, 2*(1), 2-17.

Mitchell, P. D. (1970). Educational technology: Panacea of placebo?, *Aspects of Educational Technology IV*. London: Pitman.

Mitchell, P. D. (1973). The professional development of educational technologists, *Aspects of Educational Technology* V. London: Pitman.

Mitchell, P D. (1975). The discernible educational technologist. *Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 12*(5), 306-325.

Mitchell, P. D. (1982). Representation of knowledge in CAL courseware, *Computers & Education, 6*, 6 1-66.

Mitchell, P. D. (1988, June). *Evaluation of understanding in intelligent interactive systems: An application of conversation theory*. Paper presented to the, Fourth Conference on Development of Effective Interactive Instruction materials, Stanford, CT.

Pask, G. (1976). *Conversation theory*. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Powers, W. T. (1973). *Behaviour: The control of perception*. New York, NY:

Richmond, W. K (1967). *The educational industry*. Methuen, London.
Robinson, H.W., & Knight, D.E. (Eds.) (1972). *Cybernetics, artificial intelligence and biology*. New York: Spartan Books.

Rosenfeld, A. (1969). The second genesis: The coming control of life. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schwen, T. M. (1988). An organizational analysis of the future of educational technology. *Journal of Instructional Development, 1* 1(3) 2 1-27,

Smuts, J. C. (1925). Quoted in the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, 1971.

Warfield, J. N. (1985). Developing a design culture in higher education: Some laws and principles of design. *Proceeding of the 198.5 International Conference of the Society for General Systems Research, Vol. II*, (pp. 725-729). Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.

Wiener, N. (1948). (*Cybernetics*. Cambridge, MA: M. 1. T. Press.

## AUTHOR

P. David Mitchell is a Professor in the Graduate Programs in Educational Technology at Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, PQ H3G 1M8.
TELEVISION: THE MEDIUM THE MESSAGE
AND NUTRITIONAL HEALTH

Laurie A. Wadsworth, Ph. D..

**Abstract:** This paper presents a review of research linking nutritional health and body image attitudes with television viewing. Cultivation Theory and Social Learning Theory provided the basis for a discussion of socialization of health-related attitudes by television broadcasts. Health-enhancing and health-detracting behaviours related to heavy television viewing have been highlighted in the literature. The physiological effects of viewing, including obesity, fitness level and serum cholesterol level, have led some researchers to term television a chronic disease risk factor. Content analyses of television portrayals of nutrition and body image messages have studied both advertisements and programming. These studies have indicated that television presents a paradoxical view of food – snacking on higher energy, lower nutrient dense foods abounds and yet few characters have or develop weight problems or chronic diseases. The need for health and education professionals to improve media literacy levels is evident.

Résumé: Cet article présente une revue des recherches qui établissent un lien entre la nutrition et les attitudes de perception de soi avec le visionnement de la télévision. Les théories culturelle et de socialisation sont à la base de la discussion de la socialisation des attitudes reliées à la santé par la programmation de télévision. Le développement de certains comportements nuisibles ou favorisants la santé relié au visionnement de la télévision ont déjà été soulignés dans la littérature. Les effets physiologiques reliés au visionnement de la télévision tels que l'obésite, le niveau de forme physique ainsi que le niveau de cholestérol ont mené certains chercheurs a nommer la télévision comme étant un facteur de risque pour maladie chronique. Le portrait véhiculé par la télévision en ce qui a trait à la nutrition et à l'image de soi à été analysé à l'intérieur de la programmation et de la publicité télévisées. Ces études indiquent que la télévision présente une vision paradoxale de la nourriture: la collation basée sur de la nourriture élevée en énergie; la nourriture faible en valeurs nutritives abonde mais peu de personnages développent des problemes de poids ou des maladies chroniques. Le besoin pour les professionnels de la santé et de l'éducation d'améliorer le niveau de connaissance des médias est évident.

This paper discusses the reported and purported effects of television viewing on nutrition, body image and general health. Nutrition and body image related research have extensively studied mass communication, particularly that of television. This body of research will be reviewed in terms of audience use research, media effects research and media content analysis.

Background

Recent research concerning the amount of time people spend viewing television has garnered much attention. Children spend more time in front of the
television than they do in school an estimated 28 hours weekly (Comstock and Paik, 1987). Each week, adult males and females watch 29 and 34 hours, respectively. After retirement, this figure increases (Black & Bryant, 1992). In the average household, the television is turned on about 55 hours each week (Comstock & Paik, 1987), indicating that families don't always view together. So, it seems that besides work or school and sleep, television occupies the greatest proportion of viewers' time (Black & Bryant, 1992). It has been estimated that over the period of one year Americans collectively spend 30 million person years viewing television (Murray, 1993).

Comstock (1993) suggested that these viewing time statistics have a certain folklore quality about them. He noted that typical television viewing is not marked by constant attention to the screen, but is discontinuous, often interrupted and is not the sole activity engaged in by the viewer. Viewing tends to be characterized by 'content indifference', 'low involvement' and 'monitoring'

'''' (Comstock, 1993, p. 126). Thus, the estimated viewing hours, and those reported to ratings companies, define the upper limits of possible attending to the screen only (Comstock, 1993). However, while viewers may not be actively engaged in viewing while in the room with the television set, they are aware of the content at a lower level of consciousness; that is, they are monitoring the programming. Thus, the brain may still recognize all that is broadcast.

On average, a child views 22,000 commercials annually (Signorielli, 1990). Advertisements for food products constitute at least 5000 of these ads, over half of which are for low nutrient dense foods (Signorielli, 1990). As well, data from the long-term cultural indicators project showed that a typical viewer of prime-time welcomes about 300 stable characters into their homes each week (Gerbner, 1985). Often the foods consumed by these characters are of low nutritional quality and the foods are used to soothe unsettled emotions or as socialization tools rather than to curb hunger (Weinberg, 1993).

## Audience Uses of Television

In spite of the common misconception that television is solely an entertainment medium, many studies of viewers have uncovered a multitude of other uses. Much research has pointed to the informal educational ability of the medium – not only with children, but with adults, too. While, television has the ability to lay foundations for attitude and behaviour adaptations, it also validates existing attitudes and behaviours.

For many viewers, television provides them with information, both factual and fictional (Singer, 1983). In a study of 100,000 French school-aged children, 70% reported that most of their science knowledge was obtained from the television (Dan, 1992). General Mills conducted a study which presented respondents with a list of 16 health information sources. Television was cited as the main health information source by 3.1% of the respondents, second only to
doctors and dentists, a group that was chosen by 45% of the sample (Signorielli, 1990). A recent Canadian survey (Tracking Nutrition Trends, 1994), found that SO-70% of respondents obtained their nutrition information from the mass media, both print and electronic. This same study showed that only 30-40% of respondents reported obtaining such information from a dietitian/nutritionist.

Other uses for television have been noted in the literature. Singer (1983) alludes to the use of television as a babysitter or companion for children when caregivers are busy with other tasks. The role of companion or social support is also likely to occur with the socially isolated, such as the elderly or unemployed, since it has been noted that television viewing hours increase in these groups (Huston, Donnerstein, Fairchild, Feshback, Katz, Murray, Rubinstein, Wilcox & Zuckerman, 1992). As well, a study by Tarasuk and Maclean (1990) suggested that owning a television set and VCR and subscribing to basic or expanded cable services not only provided the low-income family with entertainment and escapism, but it added to their sense of financial security due to the high resale value of the hardware.

Audience uses of television are many and varied. But, what effect do these uses have on the audience?

## Television Viewing Effects

### Television as Reality

An area which has received much attention is that of perceived reality of television by the viewer. Concepts about reality begin early in life. Children aged two to three years do not comprehend the representational nature of television (Fitch, Huston & Wright, 1993). A bizarre example of this from the literature involved a 3-year-old boy who presented to the physician with constipation. The child refused to sit on the toilet and had reverted to using a diaper after viewing a television commercial in which the toilet bowl turned into a monster with the lid making a biting movement (Pilapil, 1990). While this commercial was targeted towards adults, and was likely found amusing by adults, it was perceived very differently by a child. Such unrealistic portrayals are not likely to be understood until around seven or eight years of age when children are able to distinguish between active and symbolic events (Blosser & Roberts, 1985). Around age 10 years, children seem to judge factuality similarly

Perception of message intent research has largely centred on child viewers of commercials. In studies of children aged 4 to 11 years, increasing age has been directly related to improved ability to recognize message intent (Blosser & Roberts, 1985; Robertson & Rossiter, 1974). The most apparent increase in this ability occurred between eight and nine years of age (Blosser & Roberts, 1985). Robertson & Rossiter (1974) proposed that such improvement was due to both
cognitive development and the cumulative experience with commercial
messages.

Socialization of Attitudes and Television

Its ubiquity, visual appeal and the minimal skills required to use it, make television an ideal socialization agent. Based on the concepts of social learning theory, this medium assists viewers to acquire the values, beliefs, attitudes and mores of a culture – both their own and those of others.

Signorielli (1993) states that the “story-telling” function of television is paramount to viewers’ learning of the world and its social structures. The images and popular culture portrayed by this medium tell the viewer about life. It is this same function which can be potentially damaging by misshaping perceptions of the real world through stereotyping (Rubinstein, 1983). In terms of gender role images on television, the majority of female characters in prime-time maintain traditional roles, tend to be younger than their male counterparts, are outnumbered by men by a ratio of two or three to one (Signorielli, and are slimmer than male characters (Silverstein, et al., 1986).

Recent research has pointed to the effect of awareness of advertising, not merely exposure, on development of beliefs. Grube and Wallack (1994), in a study of fifth and sixth grade children, concluded that children who were more aware of beer advertisements held more favourable beliefs about drinking, had a greater knowledge of beer brands and slogans, and reported a greater intent to drink as adults. A British survey of over 7000 children aged 11 to 16 years, found that when asked for their favourite commercial, the most popular choices were beer and lager products (Nelson & While, 1994). These commercials were significantly more likely to be chosen as favourites by children who claimed to drink alcohol (Nelson & While, 1994). Thus, it is possible that attitudes and beliefs formed by television viewing may affect behaviour. This is of major concern since prime time televised alcohol consumption portrayals have been reported to appear twice as often as those of coffee or tea, 14 times as often as soft drinks and 15 times as often as water (Tucker, 1985).

Television, Body Image and Self Esteem

Of interest to nutrition and health professionals is the psychological
research of how individuals construct mental models of themselves called self-
schemas. One such self-schema is body image, the view of body shape, size and
physical ability as compared to the perceived norm (Ikeda & Naworski, 1992). It
is closely linked to self-esteem, physical changes in the body (puberty,
pregnancy, menopause), socialization, prevailing social values and judgments or
feedback from others (Rice, 1993). Research in this area combines social reality
concepts with socialization theory.
Originating in feminist critique research, the notion of body image as a
basis for health-detracting behaviour has focused on female bodies. Yet, adult
males tend to express their ideas of health in terms of their own or others' bodies
(Watson, 1993). Thus, television could affect the personal body image of males
as well as their images of women.

It has been estimated that viewers see over 5,000 attractiveness messages each year through televised commercials (Downs & Harrison, 1985). As well, in prime-time programs, a much smaller proportion of overweight characters is portrayed than would exist in the non-mediated world (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1981; Kaufman, 1980; Silverstein, Perdue, Peterson & Kelly, 1986). For example, Silverstein et al. (1986) found that while 25.5% of males portrayed on television were rated as heavy, only 5% of female characters were so rated. At the same time, high energy foods are often referred to, giving the impression that eating excess calories is not associated with weight gain (Weinburg, 1993). Stereotypical male body images portrayed in the print media have been viewed negatively by males, who saw the body-builder image as an inappropriate and unattainable cultural representation (Watson, 1993). A cumulative effect of these messages may exist where "each of these body image messages is just one more strike on a chisel sculpting the ideal body inside a . . . mind" (Myers & Biocca, 1992, p.111). Again, based on social learning theory and cultivation analysis, heavy viewing of television could cultivate the belief that few women are overweight in the non-mediated world.

Myers and Biocca (1992) described the concept of "elastic body image" which points to the non-static nature of self body image and its susceptibility to change based on environmental cues. They found that a woman's body image is responsive to televised ideal female body images. The researchers concluded that viewing less than 30 minutes of televised messages concentrated on the socially-accepted slim female body ideal resulted in the young women feeling thinner than they did usually and slightly more euphoric. Another study found that after viewing commercials for diet food, women at high risk for developing anorexia nervosa reported more negative than positive appearance statements compared to a group of lower risk women (Kaltenbach, 1990). In terms of cultivation theory, these short-term changes in self perception could be attributed to the adoption of the presented views of social reality by the viewer.

Low self esteem, a concept closely related to negative body image, may be
reinforced by television viewing. Lonely people viewing television to pass the
time have reported increased boredom, passivity and withdrawal (Weinburg,
1993). These feelings, in turn, can lower self esteem. Adolescent males who
were light television viewers (2 h/day) compared to moderate (2-4 h/day) or
heavy (4+ h/day) viewers were more outgoing, self-controlled and emotionally
stable and were less neurotic, frustrated or troubled (Tucker, 1987). In
nutritional health terms, boredom, frustration, low self esteem, loneliness and
lack of control have been reported reasons for overeating (Weinburg, 1993).
Thus, another behavioral component is added to the body image model.

## Television and Health Behaviours

The scientific understanding of the possible roles television plays in human physical health status has little value alone. Unless behaviour is affected and, in turn, understood, causal links cannot be made and prevention strategies cannot be effectively implemented. The effect exerted by television on viewers is a function of the time spent viewing, the accumulation over time of what is seen (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1990) and the qualities and intentions of the viewer (Huston et al., 1992).

## Purchasing and Product Choice Behaviour

Television commercials implicitly and explicitly influence viewers to purchase products. In children, the effect manifests itself as either a direct product purchase or a request of the caregiver to purchase the product (Clancy-Hepburn, Hickey & Nevill, 1974).

With an interviewer-administered questionnaire for parents, the viewing habits and food requests of children aged 3 to 8 years were gathered (Taras, Sallis, Patterson, Nader & Nelson, 1989). Foods requested reportedly due to a television commercial were similar in frequency to the televised rates of the commercials themselves. Also, a significant positive correlation was found between viewing hours and television influenced purchase requests made by the children. In a laboratory setting, children who worked harder, by pressing a button, to keep commercials rather than program material on a television monitor, were observed to make a greater number of purchase-influencing attempts at the grocery store (Galst & White, 1976).

First grade children viewing commercials for highly sugared foods tended to choose more sugared foods as snacks when compared to controls or children who saw pro-nutrition public service announcements (PSAs) (Goldberg, Gorn & Gibson, 1978). In a later study, Gorn and Goldberg (1982) exposed campers aged 5 to 8 years to one of four commercial treatments over 14 consecutive days. The treatments included candy commercials, fruit commercials, pro-nutrition PSAs and no commercial messages. Children exposed to the fruit commercials chose the most fruit juice as a snack while those exposed to the candy commercials chose the least orange juice as a snack. As well, less fruit was chosen by the candy commercial group than any other group. Unlike most previous studies, this research attempted to improve the validity of any association found by using a longitudinal design and exerting some control over food choice and television viewing behaviour through the choice of a summer camp setting.
While most of the research relates children’s food choices with televised commercials, Goldberg and colleagues (1978) investigated the effect of a pro-nutrition episode of Fat Albert, an animated half-hour program with Bill Cosby appearing intermittently to emphasize points. The results indicated that viewing the program, which dealt with the problems of eating excessive amounts of low nutrient dense foods, changed short-term food choices even when accompanied by commercials for snack and breakfast foods with high sugar contents. Thus, television programming also can affect behaviour and perhaps even counteract commercial content.

Research with adults has shown similar effects of television advertising on food product choices. Marketing research surrounding the Kellogg All Bran(R) advertising strategy of 1984, has shown a major impact on product purchase. Levy & Stokes (1987) reported on the televised media campaign targeted to the 35-year-old and over audience. This All Bran(R) campaign presented the fibre-cancer prevention message and was endorsed by the National Cancer Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Market share was tracked using computerized purchase data from grocery store check-outs from 16 weeks prior to the campaign to 48 weeks following its initiation. In the first 24 weeks of the campaign, sales for all high fibre cereals (particularly Kellogg cereals) rose sharply. The growth in sales continued over the next 24 weeks, but this was due mainly to increased sales of non-Kellogg high fibre cereals (Levy & Stokes). At the end of the study, high fibre cereal sales had increased to 8.4% of all ready-to-eat cereal sales, an increase of 2.3% (Levy and Stokes). It is interesting to note that this seemingly small increase was of major importance as a 1% market share was equal to over $40 million (Levy & Stokes).

This advertising campaign by Kellogg gave impetus to a review of U.S. government policy towards health claims in food advertising and a suspension of the ban against health claims while the issue was being considered. Between 1984 and 1986, surveys reported an increase in public knowledge regarding the link between cereal fibre and cancer prevention from 9% to 32% (Ippolito & Mathios, 1990). Lifting the advertising ban created a more accessible information source for consumers which resulted in their behaviour change. Televised cereal commercials and placement of health promotion messages on product packaging were better able to reach a wider audience than previously available information sources (Ippolito & Mathios, 1990). In terms of social marketing theory, their evidence suggested that this form of communication reduced the cost of obtaining information for broad sectors of the population.

## Health-Enhancing Behaviour

The transmission of positive health messages is well suited to the television medium. It offers a route to population segments which are generally though of as 'hard-to-reach', such as older adults, lower income groups, those with lower