medicine and teaching that, presumably, function more effectively when practiced as cooperative technologies" (pp. 10-11). He argues that uses of instructional technologies are generally exploitative in nature because the primary mode of utilization is "drill and practice" linked to specific objectives and standardized achievement tests determined by the commercial creators of the technology. Komoski discerns that educators are generally pleased with these efforts because they have been told that *productivity* should be their major concern and they have defined productivity as doing more of the same faster and better.

Systematically structured curricula which employ instructional materials and technologies in an exploitative manner characterize what Komoski labels "closed-in" curriculum and instruction. He states, "by committing to a systematically packaged, closed-in curriculum program that promises results on a pre-determined measure, it is easy to ignore the need to develop an opened-out systemically-evolving curriculum designed to educate students for an unknown future, rather than to train them to do well on today's known tests" (p. 14).

Komoski believes that to remedy the situation, administrators and teachers must simply become more involved and work in cooperation with the learner and the community in the development of relevant curricula. He recommends that the structure, stated objectives and instructional methods underlying any integrated system, whether textbook or computer-based, should be examined before making a decision to purchase. He strongly believes that commercially produced instructional materials should not comprise the learner's total education, but that different learning experiences should be designed, for example, community-based experiences or peer-teaching experiences. He cites the need "to carefully think through the educational purposes of the school and the need to design, select, and arrange learning experiences that treat each learner as an intrinsically valuable educational end, not as an exploitable means" (p. 20).

Komoski is, however, realistic about the time and training requirements of the reforms he is proposing. He notes that, "neither teachers nor administrators have information or information/management tools equal to the job society is expecting them to do" (p. 24). He continues, "a major implication of these shifts in types and numbers of instructional options available to schools is the problem of sorting out, identifying, correlating, and effectively using the most relevant of these options to fill a particular instructional need in a school's curriculum" (p. 25).

Finally, in the last few pages, not even hinted at before that point, Komoski's purpose becomes clear. He could have labored less in supporting his arguments and still have convinced the reader to consider the merits of an integrated set of data bases which appear to be extremely beneficial in helping educators to make the reforms he has outlined. These databases, for which Komoski seems to have had a primary developmental responsibility, are entitled the *Integrated Instructional Information Resource* (IIIR), but are
referred to simply as the Resource. The Resource provides a comprehensive, evolving set of curriculum descriptors to support a school's work in designing or revising its curriculum purposes, goals and objectives. These descriptors may be used as an aid to:

- building locally developed curricula. By using this adaptable set of descriptors on a special curriculum design spreadsheet, curriculum committees can explore "what ifs" and continually order and reorder a school's curriculum, subject area, grade by grade;

- analyzing, and comparing the subject matter content, and the cognitive processes embedded in textbooks, other learning materials and tests to the content and processes called for in a school's curriculum;

- documenting and tracking the evolution of curriculum thinking and practice over time within a district, a state, or across states;

- using state and nationally recommended curriculum standards to inform local curriculum development; and

- accessing information concerning the need to assess how well a school's curriculum goals are beingmastered by learners (e.g., information about relevant norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests) providing a structure for accessing, correlating and aligning test information with a school's curriculum goals, its materials, and nonmaterial-based teaching strategies. (pp. 27-28)

The Resource can also aid in:

- accessing information on mediated learning experiences ranging from textbooks and the proliferating array of other instructional materials (computer-based, video-based, and print-based), to the increasing numbers of integrated systems, some of which combine computer-aided instruction and management with print and other media; and

- accessing information about nonmaterials-based learning experiences and about the ways teachers can organize use of materials to go beyond their obvious uses. This function includes such things as teacher-generated strategies, student studies of nature, local government, their own behavior, as well as having students carry out useful projects with their school and local community (p. 28)
In addition, creators of the Resource have developed a network of cooperating teaching-traininginstitutions to encourage the use of the Resource among pre-service teachers and practicing teachers. There is interest in finding ways in which the Resource may be useful to parents as a way to become more informed about their child's formal education and how they can support efforts at home.

Komoski's criticisms seem unduly harsh at times and his generalizations far too sweeping, but the basic premises which he argues have been reiterated by countless others. Much of what he describes must ring true with those who have spent time in American schools where countless numbers of students spend much of their school day occupied with uninteresting, often trivial busywork; where the effectiveness of the teacher is often evaluated primarily on whether or not students are seated and quiet. Educators from countries other than the United States must judge whether Komoski's comments are appropriate to practices in their schools.

Komoski's views were quite clear long before he chose to free the reader from the continuation of his arguments; a briefer account would have been welcome. Instead, a discussion of the many existing examples of American schools which have worked toward the reforms that Komoski promotes would have been more interesting. Information about schools which have already made use of the Resource would have lent even more credibility to what appears to be a most useful resource.

REVIEWER

Cheryl Amundsen is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.
## 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 manuscriptor 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 1 l-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. White 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 fourcopies 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: Robert M. Bernard, *Canadian Journal of Educational Communication*, Education Department, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, PQ, H3G 1M8.