(invisibly to the learner) from one to the other as necessary to capitalize on
their strengths.

COLUMN EDITOR

Earl R. Misanchuk is a Professor in the Department of Communications, Continuing and Vocational Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N OWO.
Book Reviews

Mary Kennedy, Editor

*Visuals for Information Research and Practice* by Rune Pettersson, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1989. 316 pp. $US 37.95.

*Reviewed by Earl R. Misanchuk*

Four chapters comprise the book: Communication; Perception, Learning and Memory; Literacy; and Designing Visuals for Information. Each chapter is followed by its own list of references; the last chapter is followed by an extended reference list, which is sub-divided into a number of categories (e.g., content, structure, realism, degree of detail, objects, time, statistics, motion, sound, etc.)

In Chapter 1, *Communication*, the first section, *Media and Representations*, consists of a very cursory review of a few communication models – a post-MacLuhan analysis of the medium and the message, and a sub-section &titled “Production of need-oriented information”. The second section, *Media Consumption*, discusses media market size and media-industry mapping (a classification scheme relating live media, sound media, film media, broadcast media, video media, models and exhibitions, graphical media, and telecommunications media). The third section, *New Media*, deals with electronic publishing, video, teletext, videotex, cable TV, databases, and mediateques. Both the latter two sections provide a distinctly European flavor (indeed there is considerable reference to Sweden throughout the book), but also show good awareness of North American activity. The fourth section of Chapter 1 *The Information Society*, discusses how humans evolved over the years Born writers to readers, some of the consequences of electronic publishing changes in media consumption, and the effects of the introduction of new media. The final section of the chapter, *Screen Communication*, focuses on the increasing prevalence of computers in information-provision, and includes discussions of
visual displays, color description systems, the message on the screen, and computer print-outs.

Chapter 2, *Perception, Learning and Memory*, is more research-based than the first chapter, and has sections on *Our Senses* (but limits discussion to hearing and vision), *Listening and Looking* (including perception "laws", choice of information, the brain, picture perception, and a cognitive model), and *Learning and Memory* (a very cursory introduction to learning models, a more complete description of the current information-processing model of memory, an examination of the effects of human development, and a quite spurious section on illusions).

Chapter 3, which is nearly twice the length of the other three chapters, is entitled *Literacy*, and consists of sections on *Language, Verbal Languages, Visual Languages, Linguistic Combinations*, and a review of Current Research. The section on verbal languages, after a very quick review of the history of both spoken and written language and an equally quick cross-cultural comparison of languages, contains a demonstration whose point initially may be lost on the reader (as it was on me), but which begins to make some sense later, in the section on visual languages: all the characters in a paragraph of text, then all the words-first without, then with, punctuation-are sorted in differing orders. Then a sentence is depicted in several different fonts (type styles) and sizes, and another is shown upside down and in mirror image. The demonstrations are easy to accomplish on a microcomputer, but aside from being somewhat dramatic, do not really seem to lead anywhere (at least until later). More foreshadowing of the purpose of these demonstrations might have helped the reader make more sense of this section. The section *Visual Languages* discusses functions, levels of meaning, structure, properties, picture readability, classification of visuals, picture dimensions, and characteristics of visual languages. This section is much too long, and contains some material which, if sacrificed, would not be missed: measuring picture properties, which pedantically discusses properties of pictures in general and vague terms, but does not provide much useful information to either the practitioner or the researcher; the discussion of the picture circle, which borders on the pedantic; and the several pages of description of picture archives and databases (whose logical relationship to visual language is nebulous in any event).

Chapter 4, *Designing visuals for Information*, has sections on *Content, Execution, Context, and Format*. Under *Content* are discussed such factors as structure (including reference to degree of realism and of detail); factual content (the influence of characteristics of the objects used to depict something, time, place, and statistics); events (motion, sound, humour and satire, and relationships); credibility; and viewer completion. *Execution* deals with graphical elements, types of visuals, subjects, light, shape, size, color, contrast, emphasis, composition, perspective, technical quality, symbols and explanatory words, mixing and zoom, picture editing, and copyright. *Context* looks at the interplay of words and visuals, the interplay of visuals, and layout considerations. *Format* discusses image morphology, analogue and digital
coding, perception of pixels, and image format categories.

I approached this book with the expectation and hope that it would provide useful advice to a practising instructional designer with an active interest in research on matters relating to instructional design. I was disappointed.

In the first place, there appears to have been a mismatch between my expectations and the author's intentions; after having read the book, I concluded that the book was probably less likely to have been aimed at a professional readership (e.g., practising instructional designers or message designers) than it was to have been intended as a text-book for a basic course in visual literacy (an idiosyncratic one, at that). In my own defense, although I have long since learned not to judge either the proverbial or the actual book by its cover, both the publisher's notes on the flyleaf and the author's preface appeared to promise something other than what was delivered. Indeed, neither the flyleaf nor the preface suggests that the book might be approached as an undergraduate text for a visual literacy course (a judgment of worth for which function I will have to leave to someone teachingsuch a course), but the preface explicitly states 'This book is useful to practitioners as well as to researchers" (p. vi).

Secondly, the quality of the book, both in terms of the language used to express ideas (particularly in the first chapter) and in terms of the production values of the text itself, was-at best-quite uneven. Whether the responsibility for this should be borne by the author or the publisher is moot; it should not be inflicted upon a reader. A handful of examples will illustrate why I found it very difficult to immerse myself in the book:

"Information processing is a scientific discipline comprising e.g. mathematical and numerical analysis plus methods and technics [sic] for administrative data processing." (p. viii)

'A representation, e.g. a visual, which is to be used to convey certain information, has a sender, one or more receivers and even a content, of course, a structure, a context and a format." (p. 4)

"...my view of the interrelationships of various media in a twodimensional [sic] representation [sic] of a multidimensional reality" (p. 9) [Although the effect may have been lost in the transition to thispagein thejournal, thesecond hyphenated word was in the middle of a line in the book.]

Typographic errors in a published work are, of course, not unheard of, but the frequency with which they occur in the first chapter suggests a very rushed job which is sorely in need of editorial attention. Pettersson also has a penchant for over-using quotation marks, which adds to the difficulty of reading.

Another point relating to the technical aspects of writing is that some sections are written in quite a scholarly manner, with full documentation of sources and citations, while other sections-only pages away-contain provocative statements or ideas which the reader may wish to follow up on, but which have no attribution or amplification whatever. Examples of the latter are:

"Very small children view the world as being up-side-down. After a time,
however, the brain somehow learns to process retinal images so that they are
perceived to be right-side-up." (p. 63)

‘When we look at a person who is walking or running, the eye records a
series of stills which ultimately blend into one another and form a moving
image.” (p. 64)

"Our Western society is dominated by the written word and extremely quadrangular. It is a society in which bureaucrats occupy quadrangular cells in such a way that creative and intellectually lively people are perceived as disturbing and disruptive features of the prevailing order. New ideas are effectively stifled. This leads to stagnation, industrial crises and a breakdown of the social fabric." (p. 78)

'If people like the content in a visual, they like it even more when the visual is presented in color and vice versa." (p. 233)

"Substantial research has clearly shown that learning efficiency is much enhanced when words and visuals interact and supply redundant information. The improvement sometimes exceeds sixty percent and averages thirty per-cent." (p. 268)

How much more useful Pettersson's summary statements would have been
if they had had supporting references to the research from which the state-
ments were abstracted!

A notable inconsistency appears within little more than the space of a
page: "A visual should usually be in color but not in unrealistic colors" (p. 250;
emphasis mine); but "[s]ometimes color enhances learning but in many cases
black and white would be better" (p. 251-252). My reading of the literature
certainly supports the latter statement, but not the former. The former
statement, taken out of context and attributed to a widely published scholar,
may be decidedly misleading.

Another feature of the book that needs to be improved considerably is the
use of graphics. While they are numerous, and well spaced throughout the four
chapters, they are also of uneven quality, particularly with respect to complex-
ity and interpretability The only uniform features of the illustrations are that
they are neither numbered for ease of reference, nor provided with adequate
captions, nor-in the overwhelming majority of cases-referred to in the
accompanying text. Pettersson, in summarizing research, notes that "[i]t was
also concluded that when illustrations are not relevant to the prose content no
prose-learning facilitation is to be expected, on the contrary there can be a
negative effect [sic]" (p. 106), and that "[m]any illustration [sic] (often without
legends) in contemporary textbooks appear to serve no useful purpose what-
ever" (p. 145). However, for many illustrations in his book, it is difficult to
discern what the relationship is between an illustration and the text surround-
ing it, and sometimes even why the illustration was included at all. Exceed-
ingly complex diagrams are left to stand on their own, with little or no
accompanying explanation. One could imagine some of them being effective as
overhead transparencies, bolstered by considerable verbiage from an instruc-
tor, but few of them seem capable of delivering a message on their own.
Some of the illustrations are less than effective in other ways. In one, Pettersson attempts to illustrate that, in his words, "...image design can be changed a great deal without any major changes in the perception of image content" (p. 159; emphasis his). He illustrates his point with reference to three computer-generated graphics which differ, he states, by virtue of having changed 100 pixels. He neglects to mention that those 100 pixels represent something in the order of 1.2% of the pixels comprising the drawing (at least by my admittedly crude measurements, made from the printed page). Whether 1.2% constitutes "a great deal" might be arguable; elsewhere, he notes that "[t]he use of misleading illustrations in comparisons and statistics reduces the credibility of the message itself" (p. 233).

Pettersson does provide considerable technical detail in a number of places, which may be of use to those interested in making comparisons between different technologies (e.g., between the efficiency of storage of print vs. computerized text) or between different standards within similar technologies (e.g., NTSC and PAL television standards). Because of his relatively international perspective, he provides fodder for comparisons of other kinds, as well (e.g., copyright laws; picture database access). There are other bits and pieces scattered throughout the book that will likely interest those who examine media from a cross-cultural perspective.

REVIEWER

Earl R. Misanchuk is a Professor of Extension, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N OWO.

*Opening Minds: The Evolution of Videodiscs and Interactive Learning*
by George Haynes, foreword by Rockley L. Miller, Future Systems, Inc., Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, ISBN 0-8403-5191-7

Reviewed by Jonathon Marsh

It is made abundantly clear, from the opening quotation to the final summary, Dr. Haynes' primary intention in this book is to sell the idea of interactive videodisc (IV) technology as a means to educational revolution. While the book is a cleverly crafted, informative, and up to date overview of developments in the IV world, the force of the argument presented is not sufficient to support such a grandiose concept. It may well be that the impressive and disturbing set of figures provided by Rockley L. Miller (editor of the videodisk Monitor) in the forward are good indicators of future developments and trends in training and education. It is also possible that much of Haynes' vision of the future of education may be accurate. However, significant
change in a social organization as complex as an education system involves a huge number of variables, only some of which are relevant to developments in media. The obvious difficulty involved in assessing the impact of such novel technology on the full spectrum of educational variables should suggest a modicum of caution when it comes to predictions. Strangely enough, this point is tacitly born out by Haynes himself during the course of his very excellent and comprehensive discussion of the historical factors leading up to the current state of the art. He repeatedly emphasizes the educational limitations and marketing difficulties generated by basic issues such as the lack of standardization both in video formats and disk mastering processes. Perhaps his intention is to demonstrate that his predilection for prediction is well tempered by a comprehensive knowledge of developments in the field. Unfortunately the net effect for the reader is confusing and one is left with a nagging sense of contradiction.

While, due to this confusion, it is difficult to fully share his enthusiasm for interactive video, it is not hard to appreciate the importance placed on interactive video in general. Haynes, like many before him, is quick to point out that the key issue is interactivity. For him our educational system is in dire need of change if it is to function; not just a surface change in areas concerned with the "whos" and "whats" of teaching and learning, but more critical change in the "whys" and "hows". Haynes advises us to broaden our vision of what 'getting an education' means if the students of today are to be made ready to cope with the complex demands of modern society. We must move from an elitist, restrictive, and fact oriented concept of education to a more freely accessed sharing of information oriented towards problem solving. Haynes suggests that interactive technology in general and interactive video in particular is the "change agent" required to promote just such an evolution. Not only does it "through innovative classroom use have the potential to augment standard pedagogy and... advance individualized and mastery learning" (p. 104), it is in the words of Karen Block a "symbolic technology" which can "qualitatively change the structure and function of mental activities such as problem solving or memory" (p. 96). Like most agents of change it is destined to be viewed with suspicion and mistrust until such time as it has proven its worth.

Such esoteric claims are surprisingly common and often poorly supported in the field of educational media. However in the case of this book they are well documented with references to case studies and such research as is available. The major points are clearly presented and situated squarely within a set of well defined historical constructs (if a better and more entertaining history of the development of interactive media exists it would be an interesting read indeed). The book includes a finely documented chapter on "the Standards Dilemma" which not only clarifies many of the issues surrounding software development and compatibility but examines them with specific reference to lessons learned from development projects within governmental, corporate, and to a lesser degree educational institutions. As for providing the reader with
coverage of actual training implementations, Haynes outdoes himself. Instead of broadly outlining the results of various research projects, he provides a short synopsis of ten different studies, each of which reflects a different attempt to assess the worth of the technology within a particular context. Broad insights are derivable from these studies which Haynes comments on in an attempt to provoke the reader into thinking more deeply about the types of educational change he proposes.

Focal to Haynes' concept of educational change is the need for teacher competence in the use of new technology Too often has new wine been forced into old wineskins. He suggests that due to the significant increase in communication capabilities surrounding the new technology, we are faced with the need for a new form of curricular integration. Teacher, student, parent, professional, school, institution, and corporation must all be incorporated into the process of educating the individual if the full potential of the technology is to be realized. It is only reasonable to assume that in the early stages of such a development the teacher will be at the helm. However it is entirely unreasonable to assume that teachers with only limited understanding and competence in the use of new technology can meet the challenge. It is also futile to imagine that we will attract individuals to the teaching profession who can meet this challenge unless society as a whole undergoes some reassessment of their status as professionals.

As astute as Haynes is with respect to the educational implications of interactive technology it is rather disappointing to have him refer on numerous occasions to advances and developments in educational technology as apparently equivalent to advances and developments in instructional media (ie. newer and more powerful machine configurations). It is particularly disturbing as he does so after pointedly quoting Everett Rogers' model of a technology as "a design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome" (Preface X). The fact that he clarifies his use of the term technology should indicate an understanding of educational technology as being concerned with the analysis and design of educational systems and processes (which usually includes knowledge of media use) and not with specific hardware configurations. It is unfortunate that a thinker who expresses such an obvious concern for systemic thinking in educational development, and who so adamantly emphasizes the primacy of good design principles in the application of media to the process of instruction, should so blatantly appear to misuse such a critical term.

While it is necessary to criticise this book on the above mentioned issues, it is also appropriate to laud it for its strengths. There is currently available a plethora of books, monographs, and articles concerned with the design and development of interactive media. Very little has been done however to provide us with a comprehensive look at the historical developments and educational implications of this technology. Access to such an overview is a necessity for anyone required to make well informed media-based training decisions. If one is inclined to consider Haynes' more esoteric claims as food for thought, then
this book is ideal for meeting the need. Haynes does not sacrifice a very readable style for the sake of academic appearances. Although the book is not overly long (150 pages) the treatment of the subject is substantial and illuminating. These factors combined with the inclusion of a reasonably comprehensive glossary make the work extremely suitable as an introductory text for students interested in instructional media.

Karen Block's paper entitled "The Information Age in Education: Computer Assisted Learning" is included in the text as a subsection of Chapter 4.

REVIEWER

Joanathon Marsh is Senior Educational Technologist, Educational Technology Centre, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
The following references should have accompanied the article entitled *Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Review for Beginners* which appeared in Volume 19, Number 2 of CJEC. We include them here, with apologies to the authors and readers.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.A., & Rosenfeld, E. (Eds.) (1988). *Neurocomputing: A reader*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Anderson, J.R. (1983). *The architecture of cognition*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, J.R. (1988). The expert model. In M.C. Polson, & J.J. Richardson (Eds.), *Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems* (pp. 21-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baecker, D., & Buxton, W. (Eds.) (1987). *Readings in human-computer interaction*. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kauffman.

Beale, R., & Finlay, J. (1989). *User modeling with a neural system*. Heslington, UK: University of York, Department of Computer Science, Technical Report.

Begg, I., & Hogg, I. (1987). Authoring systems for ICAI. In G.P. Kearsley (Ed.), *Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods* (pp. 323-345). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brecht, B., McCalla, G., Greer, J., & Jones, M. (1989). Planning the content of instruction. In D. Bierman, *J. breuker, & J. Sandberg (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and education: Synthesis and reflection* (pp. 32-44). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS.

Bobrow, D. (1984). Qualitative reasoning about physical systems: An introduction. In D. Bobrow (Ed.), *Qualitative reasoning about physical systems* (pp. 1-5). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brown, J.S. (in press). Towards a new epistemology for learning. In C. Fraisson & J. Gauthiers (Eds.) *Intelligent tutoring systems: At the crossroad of AI and education*. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, J.S., & Burton, R.R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. *Cognitive Science, 2*, 155-192.

Burns, H.L., & Capp, C. G. (1988). Foundations of intelligent tutoringsystems: An introduction. In M. C. Polson, & J. J. Richardson (Eds.), *Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems* (pp. 1-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., & Newell, A. (1983). *Psychology of human-computer interaction*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carr, B., & Goldstein, J.P. (1977). *Overlays: A theory of modelling for computer aided instruction: AI lab memo (406), Logo memo (40)*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carbonell, J. (1970). AI in CAI: An artificial intelligence approach to computer assisted instruction, *IEEE Transaction on Man-Machine Systems*, *11*,190-202.

Charniak, E., & McDermott, D. (1984). *Introduction to Artificial Intelligence*. Reading, MA: Addison-wesley Publishing Company.

Clancey, W.J. (1987). *Knowledge-based tutoring: The GUIDON program*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cumming, G., & Self, J. (in press). Learner modelling in collaborative intelligent educational systems. In P. Goodyear (Ed.), *Teaching knowledge and intelligent tutoring systems*. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Derry, S., Hawkes, L., & Ziegler, U. A plan-based opportunistic architecture for intelligent tutoring. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 116-123). Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.

Elsom-Cook, M. (1988). Guided discovery tutors and bounded user modelling. In J. Self (Ed.), *Artificial intelligence and human learning: Intelligent computer-aided instruction*. New York, NY Chapman and Hall.

Elsom-Cook, M., & Spensley, F. Using multiple teaching strategies in an ITS. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 286-290). Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.

Gagne, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W.W. (1988). *Principles of instructional design (3rd edition)*. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gorman, R., & Sejnowski, T. (1988). Analysis of hidden units in a layered network trained to classify sonar targets, *Neural Networks*, *1*, 75-89.

Greeno, J. (1983). Conceptual entities. In D. Gentner, & A. Stevens (Eds.) *Mental models* (pp. 227-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hunka S. (1988). *Fifteen years of teaching elementary applied statistics using CAI*. (RIR-88-6) Edmonton, AB: Division of Educational Research, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta,

Kieras, D. (1988). What mental model should be taught: Choosing instructional content. In J. Psotka, L. Massey, & S. Mutter (Eds.), *Intelligent tutoring systems: Lessons learned* (pp. 85-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lippert, C. (1987). Teaching problem solving in mathematics and science with expert systems. *School Science and Mathematics*, *87*, 477-493.

Littman, D., & Soloway, E. (1988). Evaluating ITSs: The cognitive science perspective. In M.C. Polson, & J. J. Richardson (Eds.), *Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems* (pp. 209-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mathews, M., Biswas, G., & Neelakandam, H. (1988). *USCSH: An active assistance interface for Unix.* *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 124-131). Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.

McCalla, G. (1987). *Knowledge representation issues in automated tutoring.* (Research Report 87-1). Saskatoon, SK: Computational Science, University of Saskatchewan.

McCalla, G., & Greer, J. (1988). Intelligent advising in problem solving domains: The SCENT-3 architecture. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 124-131). Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.

Miller, J.R. (1988). The role of human-computer interaction in intelligent tutoring systems. In M.C. Polson, & J. J. Richardson (Eds.), *Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems* (pp. 143-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moyse, R. (1989). Knowledge negotiation implies multiple viewpoints. In D. Bierman, J. Breuker, & J. Sandberg (Eds.), *Artificial intelligence and education: Synthesis and reflection* (pp. 142-149). Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Minsky, M. (1986). *The society of mind*. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Minsky, M., & Papert, S. (1969). *Perceptrons*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Norman, D. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Getner, & A. Stevens (Eds.), *Mental models* (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Norman, D., & Draper, S. (Eds.) (1986). *User centered system design*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Papert, S. (1981). *Mindstorms*. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.

Park, O., Perez, R.S., & Seidel, R.J. (1987). Intelligent CAI: Old wine in new bottles, or a new vintage? In G.P. Kearsley (Ed.), *Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods* (pp. 11-45). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Pea, R., & Soloway, E. (1988). The state of the art in education technology research and design: Policy issues and opportunities. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 16-17). Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.

Pinker, S., & Mehler, J. (Eds) (1988). *Connections and symbols*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Quigley, M. (1989). In D. Bierman, J. Breuker, & J. Sandberg (Eds.), *Artificial intelligence and education: Synthesis and reflection* (pp. 210-217). Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Reiser, B. J., Anderson, J.R., & Farrell, R.B. (1985). Dynamic student modelling in an intelligent tutor for LISP programming. *Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence* · 85 1 (pp. 8-14). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Richardson, J. J. (1988). Directions for research and applications. In M.C. Polson, & J. J. richardson (Eds.), *Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems* (pp. 243-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rosenblatt, J. J. (1988) Directions for research and applications. In M.C. Polson, & J. J. Richardson (Eds.), *Foundations of intetligent tutoring systems* (pp. 243-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rumelhart, D., McClelland, J., & PDP Research Group (Eds.) (1986). *Parallel distributed processing, Volume 1: Foundations*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sejnowski, T., &Rosenberg, C. (1986). *NETtalk: A parallel network that learns* to read aloud. John Hopkins University electrical Engineering and Computer Science Technical Report.

Self, J. (1988). Bypassing the intractable problem of student modelling. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 18-24) Montreal, Canada.

Self, J. (1989). The case for formalizing student models (and intelligent tutoring systems generally). Presented at: *The 4th International Conference on AI and Education*, Amserdam, Netherlands.

Shorliffe, E.H. (1976). *Computer based medical consultants: MYCIN*. New York, NY: American Elsevier Publishers.

Sleeman, D., & Brown, J.S. (Eds.) (1982). *Intelligent tutoring systems*. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Suthers, D. (1988). Providing multiple views of reasoning for explanation. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 436-442). Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.

VanLehn, K. (1982). Bugs are not enough: Empirical studies of bugs, impasses, and repairs in procedural skills. *The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 3* (2), 3-71.

Vardi, M. (Ed.) (1988). *Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge*. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Walters, J., &Nielsen, R. (1988). *Crafting knowledge based systems*. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Waterman, D.A. (1986). *A guide to expert systems*. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Enger, E. (1987). *Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and cognitive approaches to the communication of knowledge*. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Winne, P., & Cramer, L. (1988). representing and inferencing with knowledge about teaching: DOCENT -An artifically intelligent planning system for teachers. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 7-15). Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.

Wipond, K., & Jones, M. (1988). Curriculum and knowledge representation in a knowledge based system for curriculum development. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 97-102). Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.
Woolf, B. (1988a). Intelligent tutoring systems: A survey. *Survey lectures from the American Association of Artificial Intelligence 1986-1987*. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Woolf, B. (1988b). 20 years in the trenches: What have we learned? *Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Intelligent Tutoring Systems* (pp. 33-39).
Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal.
Index to Volume 19, 1990

Articles and Critiques (by title)

An Anthropological View of Educational Communications and Technology: Beliefs and Behaviors in Research and Theory, A. Yeaman, 19(3), 237-246.

Computer-Mediated Communication and School Administrators: A Case Study of a University In-Service Course, J. Ahola-Sidaway, M. MacLean, J. Treuhaft, 19(1), 53-73.

Conception d'un systeme conseiller intelligent dedie a la modelisation conceptuelle des donnees, M. Boulet, 19(1), 3-18.

Conceptualizing Hypermedia Curricula for Literary Studies in Schools, A. Cumming, G. Sinclair, 19(2), 125-137.

Des activites cognitives et metacognitives concu pour developper l'autonomie des etudiants adutes dans un cours en enseignement a distance, A. Deschenes, C. Lebel, L. Bourdages, B. Michaud, 19(2), 87-104.

Effects of Students' Prior Knowledge and Presentation Mode on Achievement (Visual/Verbal Testing) of Different Educational Objectives, F. Dwyer, C. Dwyer, 19(3), 199-215.

Examination of Cognitive Style FD/FI as a Learner Selection Criterion in Formative Evaluation, C. Chinien, 19(1), 19-39.

Integrating Research into Instructional Practice: The Use and Abuse of Meta-Analysis, R. Bernard, S. Naidu, 19(3), 171-198.

Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Review for Beginners, P. Holt, P. Wood, 19(2), 105-123.

Protecting Expression in Teleconferencing: Pseudonym-Based Peer Review Journals, D. Stodolsky, 19(1), 41-51.

Saying "No" to Computers in the Classroom, R. Nelsen, 19(2), 139-149.

Saying "Yes" to Educational Technology: A Response to Nelsen's "No", R. Jones, 19(2), 151-156.

Thermex: An Educational Expert System for Thermodynamics Students, B. Marcos, K. Lundgren, A. Boily, L. Therien, J. Lapointe, M. Veilette, 19(3) 217-235.

Articles and Critiques (by author)

Ahola-Sidaway, J., M. MacLean and J. Treuhaft, Computer-Mediated Communication and School Administrators: A Case Study of a University In-Service Course. 19(1), 53-73.
**Bernard**, R., and S. Naidu, *Integrating Research into Instructional Practice: The Use and Abuse of Meta-Analysis*, 19(3), 171-198.

**Boily**, A. (see Marcos)

**Boulet**, M., *Conception d'un systeme conseiller intelligent dedie a la modelisation conceptuelle des donnees*, 19(1), 3-18.

**Bourdagee**, L. (see Deschenes)

Chinien, C. *Examination of Cognitive Style FD/FI as a Learner Selection Criterion in Formative Evaluation*, 19(1), 19-39.

**Cumming**, A. and G. Sinclair, *Conceptualizing Hypermedia Curricula for Literary Studies in Schools*, 19(2), 125-137.

**Deschenes**, A., C. Lebel, L. Bourdages, and B. Michaud, *Des activites cognitives et metacognitives concu pour developper l'autonomie des etudiants adutes dans un cours en enseignement a distance*, 19(2), 87-104.

**Dwyer**, C. (see Dwyer, F.)

**Dwyer**, F., and C. Dwyer, *Effects of Students' Prior Knowledge and Presentation Mode on Achievement (Visual/Verbal Tasting) of Different Educational Objectives*, 19(3), 199-215.

**Holt**, P., and P. Wood, *Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Review for Beginners*, 19(2), 105-123.

Jones, R. *Saying 'Yes' to Educational Technology: A Response to Nelsen's 'No'*, 19(2), 151-156.

**Lapointe**, J. (see Marcos)

**Lebel**, C. (see Deschenes)

**Lundgren**, K. (see Marcos)

**MacLean**, M. (see Ahola-Sidaway)

**Marcos**, B., K. Lundgren, A. Boily, L. Therien, J. Lapointe, and M. Veilette, *Thermex: An Educational Expert System for Thermodynamics Students*, 19(3) 217-235.

**Michaud**, B. (see Deschenes)

**Naidu**, S. (see Bernard)

**Nelsen**, R. *Saying “No” to Computers in the Classroom*, 19(2), 139-149.

**Sinclair**, G. (see Cumming)

**Stodolsky**, D. *Protecting Expression in Teleconferencing: Pseudonym-Based Peer Review Journals*, 19(1), 41-51.

**Therien**, L. (see Marcos)

**Treuhaft**, J. (see Ahola-Sidaway)

**Veilette**, M. (see Marcos)

**Wood**, P. (see Holt)

**Yeaman**, A. *An Anthropological View of Educational Communications and Technology: Beliefs and Behaviors in Research and Theory*, 19(3), 237-247.

## Columns (by title)

*Microware Review*, PowerPoint, L. Proctor, 19(1), 75-77.
*Microwave Review*, Authorware Professional: Part I, L. Proctor, 19(2), 157-161.

*Microwave Review*, Authorware Professional: Part II, E. Misanchuk, 19(3), 247-253.

## Book Reviews (by title)

*The Electronic Text: Learning to Write, Read and Reason with Computers*, by W. Costanzo. Reviewed by T. Gambell, 19(1), 79-81.

*A Handbook of Computer Baaed Training (2nd Edition)*, by C. Dean and Q. Whitlock. Reviewed by S. Taylor, 19(2), 151-154.

*Interactive Media: Working Methods and Practical Applications*, by D. Laurillard. Reviewed by I? Nicholson, 19(2), 154-156.

*Opening Minds: The Evolution of Videodisc and Interactive Learning*, by G. Haynes. Reviewed by J. Marsh, 19(3), 259-262.

*Teachers as Curriculum Planners: Narrative8 of Experience*, by E. Connelly and D. Clandinin. Reviewed by D. Hlynka, 19(1), 82-84.

*Visuals for Information Research and Practice*, by R. Pettersson. Reviewed by E. Misanchuk, 19(3), 255-259.
**Information for Authors**

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

**Manuscript Categories**

Manuscripts may fall into one of two classes: **General**, dealing with a topic or issue at a general level (although reference to specific instances or examples may be included), and **Profiles**, dealing with or describing only a specific instance of an approach, technique, program, project. etc. A Profile may be thought of as a descriptive case study.

Most manuscripts dealing with a topic in general should include reference to supportive literature, while manuscripts submitted to the Profile category may or may not. The Editor reserves the right to change the designation of a manuscript or to make a designation, if none has been made previously by the author. Authors interested in determining the suitability of materials should consult past issues of CJEC or contact the Editor.

All manuscripts received by the Editor (either general or profile) will be judged for suitability, contribution, accuracy, etc. by a panel of anonymous reviewers designated at the time of submission. Normally, the review process requires about eight weeks. There are no deadlines for the submission of manuscripts.

**Manuscript Preparation**

Manuscripts should be typed on 8 1/2 x 11-inch ordinary white paper. All materials must be double-spaced, including quotations and references. Include a title page on which appears the title of the manuscript. The full name of the author(s) along with position and institutional affiliation mailing address and telephone number of the contact author. An abstract of 75-150 words should be placed on a separate sheet following the title page. While the title should appear at the top of the first manuscript page, no reference to the author(s) should appear there or any other place in the manuscript. Elements of style, including headings, tables, figures and references should be prepared according to the *Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 3rd Edition*, 1983. Figures must be camera-ready.

**Submission of Manuscripts**

Send four copies of the manuscript to the Editor along with a letter stating that the manuscript is original material that has not been published and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. If the manuscript contains copyright materials, the author should note this in the cover letter and indicate when letters of permission will be forwarded to the Editor. Manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to: Richard A. Schwler. *Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, Communications, Continuing & Vocational Education, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. S7N OWO.*