Every decade has seen the introduction of at least one new communication
technology that was predicted to radically transform education and training:
In the 50's it was film, in the 60's it was broadcast educational television,
audiovisual aids such as filmstrips, slides, and the new technology of
programmed instruction; in the 70's, it was videocassettes, remote-access
audio and video, and computer-assisted instruction; and in the 80's it
was videodisc and two-way video. Now, as we find ourselves heading toward
the end of the century, the Internet is the medium du jour — the
technology that promises to revolutionize learning and upon which millions
of dollars are being spent equipping classrooms and homes and in preparing
teachers. But in the year 2000, will we look back and find it a passing
fancy, an outdated idea, and a waste of money? And how can we predict which
technologies will persist (like videocassettes) and which will never really
make it (like videodiscs and teaching machines)?
In the February 1989 issue of this magazine, I published an article in this magazine, "Why Information Technologies Fail" (Gayeski, 1989). In it, I attempted to synthesize the history of significant instructional technologies and to develop some characteristics that appeared to be necessary for them to succeed. It's time to review my conclusions and predictions and see how these concepts have held up over the past decade. So, this article is a reflection on what we might learn from the history of new media that could help us better predict what to "buy into" in the future.
Failures and Successes of the Past Decade
In my 1989 article, I documented several visible failures among instructional media:
Each of these technologies had experienced significant funding, both
from private sources and government grants, and was shown to be an effective
medium for communication and instruction. But despite the money and research
conclusions, none of these media ever gained wide acceptance. While one
might argue that they were replaced by newer and better technologies (such
as teaching machines being replaced by computer-based instruction), the
fact is that these technologies disappeared before their successors were
really on the scene. As I updated my previous article, I realized that
many people would not even recognize what the terms listed above meant!
The previous article also suggested several media that were then "questionable":
Teleconferencing (video-based communication via phone lines or satellite broadcast) has been available for some time, but falling equipment costs and relatively inexpensive satellite time have made this medium more accessible to a wider range of organizations. Only about 20 percent of organizations use this medium for training today (Industry Report, 1996) even though the medium has the promise to drastically reduce training costs. Although there were predictions that teleconferencing would replace a great deal of business travel and facilitate home-based work, they have not yet been fulfilled. It appears that people still need to get together face-to-face but that teleconferencing has enabled wider participation in discussions and decision-making by making it feasible for larger numbers of middle managers and line workers to interact with managers and co-workers at a distance.
Three of the technologies that were "questionable", CAI, interactive video, and CD-ROM, have essentially merged into what we now call "multimedia". Videodiscs never really did catch on, nor did CAI delivered via floppy disks or networks. Although computer-based training has been a well-established medium for more than ten years, only about 37 percent of organizations are using it for training. And most of this use is "canned" CD-ROMs to provide training on computer applications (Industry Report, 1996). Even though many workers have PCs on their desks, the most common method for corporate training is still seminars and lectures, not computer-delivered training.
The last technology in the questionable category, artificial intelligence, has taken a slightly different turn than what was anticipated. A decade ago, there was great interest in developing expert systems that could solve problems by means of elaborate programmed rules. This technology promised the possibility of not just automating instruction, but virtually eliminating instruction in many cases since a computer program's expertise would replace the need for many human experts. Today, we have re-named this idea "electronic performance support systems" (EPS) and somewhat scaled down our expectations. "The dream of EPS is to provide the individual worker with a computer link to a system that acts as a combination coach / trainer / job aid / encyclopedia reference. Most current systems are only rough approximations of that dream — and except in large organizations, they're still very rare (Industry Report, 1996, p. 79).
So what did catch on — or remain popular? The media that were
clearly identified as "success stories" in 1989 are still among the most
popular learning aids: videocassettes and visual aids such as slides and
overhead transparencies. Since about 1975 when the standardized, easy-to-use
3/4" U-Matic format became popular, video has been used extensively in
education and training. Superceded by the even smaller and less expensive
VHS standard, the technology allowed not only easy and cheaper playback
of generic programs, but facilitated local production. Today, video is
the most widely used medium for corporate training (Industry Report, 1996).
Although perhaps not as glamorous
as some other technologies, projected still images in the form of slides
and overhead transparencies are widely used in education and training.
According to a recent survey, 56 percent of organizations use overhead
transparencies, and 30 percent use slides for training programs (Industry
Report, 1996). Even with the advent of computer-based slide show programs,
most instructional applications still involve making overhead transparencies
from computer printouts. Especially in corporate training, however, more
of these slide shows are being projected directly from computers, using
LCD panels or computer projectors.
The new player on the scene is clearly the Internet, especially the application of the World Wide Web standard. Within a period of five years, the use of the Internet grew from a few thousand users to a 1997 estimate of 30 million users worldwide (Graphic, Visualization, & Usability Center, 1997). Clearly, the Internet has been the fastest-growing medium in the history of communication technologies. Although the primary applications for the Internet are for research and communication rather than training, the fastest growth area in educational technologies today is online instruction of some kind, whether over the Internet or through private intranets. Over half of the respondents to a 1996 survey indicated that they had access to the Internet even though only 4 percent were using it for training (Industry Report, 1996). What's interesting however, is that 48 percent of those same respondents said that they were using the Internet for "research and information" which may indicate a shift in the way the learning is now happening at least in industry. People are now "surfing" for their own information and networking with subject matter experts, rather than creating and participating in "canned" instruction.
What Factors Inhibit the Adoption of New Media?
As I reviewed my previous research, I found that the barriers to success of new technologies that I had summarized a decade ago still hold true today. However, there again been some unexpected twists and turns within those categories that we now need to recognize.
Technophobia
Many enthusiasts of new information technologies label their more cautious colleagues as technophobic or conservative. For example, in a survey more than a decade ago of teachers' reactions to educational computing, it was found that different uses of computer technology elicited different concerns about the technology. Teachers' concerns did not address a total package of technology, but rather specific applications of the technology, demonstrating that computers per se were not troubling to them (Wedman, 1986). More current research has revealed similar conclusions.
But today, unlike a decade ago, it is actually fashionable among scholars and practitioners to raise deep concerns about new media. A decade ago, the "average" teacher or trainers might be expected to be quite skeptical regarding new media and be afraid that they couldn't learn to use it, while academics and more progressive practitioners embraced emerging technologies. Now, the notion that new media are somehow essential for efficient and modern education is the "common" view and academics and practitioners in educational and communication technologies often classify themselves as critics and even "Neo-Luddites". The new fear is not that the average person can't learn to use the technology. The fear is that technology will invade privacy, will destroy community and critical thinking, and that too much time will be spent in virtual rather than real activity (Postman, 1992; Stoll, 1995). And in the 90s, media technologies have become controlled by big business and have largely become commercialized, rather than being the tools of researchers and teachers — raising a whole new set of concerns.
Inhibition of human contact
One of the strongest themes running through descriptions of technologies that have failed is their attempt to reduce contact among people. Even when media have been proven to be effective substitutes for classroom instruction, both instructors and students report that they don't like to learn in isolation. For example, the five year project to study 2-way interactive cable TV by the Carroll Instructional Television Consortium in Illinois found that: 1) students learned about the same in traditional classrooms as through cable; 2) students reacted positively to the cable instruction; but 3) a flaw was that the cable system does not allow students to get to know classmates (Robinson and West, 1986). Indeed, current constructivist instructional theory emphasizes the fact that learning is a social process and should take place within "authentic" situations. It is not, as was expressed in the past, the "delivery" of knowledge.
People like to be with other people, most enjoy traveling and getting out of their offices or homes, and many do not quite trust even the most effective instructional media. Spin-off benefits accrue from group meetings, including an initiation to the organization's culture, enhanced motivation, and unplanned discussion of topics which may or may not be directly related to the instruction at hand, but yet may be valuable to individuals and their organization. The proof is in the numbers: 91 percent of companies use classroom programs for training, and almost twice the amount of money is being spent on seminars and conferences than on off-the-shelf or custom materials. In fact, organizations spent more than 3.6 million on seminars and conferences in 1996 (Industry Report, 1996).
Disruption of the legal / economic status
Many applications of instructional technologies imply a change in the legal or economic status quo which may be difficult and lengthy to implement, at best, and ultimately undesirable at worst. Even when developers and adopters support new communication methods, they may not realize the long-term impact.
Kiesler (1986) maintained that technology has three orders of effects: The first order is the intended or planned effect; the second is transient effects; the third is the unintended social effects. Case in point: the telephone. The first order effect was to improve business communication, which of course, it eventually did. However, a second unintentional effect was a lack of privacy; for instance "phonies" or people who weren't really who they said they were would call up unsuspecting owners of telephones with fraudulent offers or annoying solicitations. The third order, or social effects of the phone, have been even more pervasive; this technology has made it possible for people to sustain social relationships across the miles, and has created a new mode of interpersonal interaction, as any parent of a teen-ager knows only too well.
People generally don't resist technical change - most people probably care little about the techniques and tools of communication. They resist the social aspects of change - the change in their human relationships (Malinconico, 1983). The more powerful the medium, the more its ability to alter the status quo. "Technologically- based instruction poses a threat to the base of our present system; the more comprehensive the technology, the greater the threat. When instructional technology becomes sophisticated enough to be considered an alternate, rather than a complement, to traditional instruction, it becomes a base for the design of a new educational system" (Heinich, 1985, p. 10). Media that can "take over" include televised courses and instructional multimedia like training on CD-ROMs or websites. Media that complement instruction include overhead projection, slides, and individual films or videotapes. Even the Internet, when used as a communication or research tool, merely supports conventional instruction rather than replaces it.
Today, we still face major hurdles with technologies that can challenge the security of trainers and educators. Much of the resistance to use distance education technology stems from the fact that jobs can be eliminated and that there is often less protection of intellectual property. For example, if a trainer or professor creates a CD-ROM or intranet-based training course, can that person's employer just continue to use the materials and fire the creator? The status of authorship and credibility is questioned in a world when anybody can publish and distribute anything by typing it and posting it on a Website. How is material on the Internet judged and refereed? How can we trust the information we receive? Finally, now that new media is a part of "big business", how might that change the character of training and education? We have seen attempts to have corporations run schools, attempting to make instruction more effective and efficient by using new technologies and by disseminating presentations by one master teacher to many sites. The Internet, once a haven for noncommercial collaboration, has become a medium for advertising and pay-per-view information, including pornography.
Lack of appropriate designs and advice
Some media that start out on the right track to widespread adoption become derailed by another competing technology. For example, teaching machines were superceded by CBT, then by videodiscs and CD-ROMs. But not all media are replaced by something newer. Videotext is an example of a medium that was less successful in communicating information than were more traditional media. Bolton (1983, p. 152) asked, "... can videotext offer services that actually are superior to the experience of going to a library, reading from a book or newspaper, paying your bills by phone, shopping in a mall, or talking on the telephone?". Today, many trainers and teachers are posting their syllabi and other materials online; one wonders what is achieved by some of these cases other than having the students pay for printing the materials rather than the instructor. The problems here are not that the media are ineffective, but that the use of the medium is not optimal.
Technology adoption is often led by vendors and corporate managers rather than designers and researchers. Because of this, hardware may be sold to users who are unprepared to design effective programs or who lack the appropriate information to use it well. McLean (1985) described the information seeking process and information sources adopted by corporate training directors when considering interactive video. Their most common sources were vendors and consultants. Why is this the case? Frequently, trainers or educational directors who want to implement new technologies are not given the necessary resources to adequately assess them. While consultants and workshops cost money, vendors will come in and "teach" you about new media for free. However, of course, this information is generally biased and incomplete, and even in situations where the guidance is more balanced, it is often not received well. Schrock (1985) reported that many faculty who participated in a federally-funded instructional design project rejected the entire notion. Quotes from faculty included, "The ID process has been badly oversold."; "The consultants are like evangelists - giving a sales pitch" (p. 20).
Trained instructional designers are often not included on teams charged with producing programs. For example, a survey by Bohlin, Evans, & Milheim (1987) found that using an instructional designer was considered least important among a list of eight processes involved in producing interactive video. Often, adopters budget only for hardware purchases, and neglect to plan for the "learning curve" in terms of costs and time needed to develop expertise in designing and producing for new media. This results in ineffective, awkward programs which do nothing to promote the wider adoption of the technology, and in fact, may send the hardware systems into a closet until someone else can be convinced of its benefits perhaps a decade later.
Although these factors have been documented for over a decade, we still find that technology initiatives are badly mismanaged and that information or decisions emanate from inappropriate sources. In a survey of college and university media centers, it was found that although most institutions were adopting multimedia, it was individual departments and faculty who were doing this on their own, without the guidance of professionals trained in educational technology and instructional design. If anything, the budgets and projects were being driven by information technology and academic computing departments which have expertise only in the technology side and who have a bias for buying more hardware and software and thus increasing their own budgets and influence (Gayeski, 1995). In another survey of corporate media and training managers, I found that most of them felt like technology and uninformed clients were "pushing" them into adoptions of media that they yet didn't really understand, and that they got most of their information from vendors (Gayeski, 1996).
Technology doesn't work reliably
New technologies, by definition, haven't been proven and the concrete result of this is equipment and software that don't always work as expected. Whether because of equipment failure or operator error, program malfunctions become a major source of embarrassment and frustration to teachers and trainers who often refuse to use the technology again. This was the case with older forms of video and teaching machines, and is still the case today with computer technologies. Just this week I was following a thread in an on-line discussion group regarding making presentations about the Internet. Even those trainers who are enthusiastic about the Internet and are teaching others to use it find that it's too unreliable to demonstrate "live" and instead are capturing screens to their hard drives or making overhead transparencies of Web pages.
Because so much of our education and training is "event" based (50-minute classes and one-day workshops), having a new technology "bomb" can be a disaster for the instructor. Furthermore, in today's environment that emphasizes learner evaluations of their instructors, trainers and teachers are afraid to look foolish or unprepared and have a bad experience follow them forever on written student evaluations that could negatively impact their careers.
No standardization
The widespread adoption of any Information technology depends upon a base of "off-the-shelf" software and upon easy exchange of programs among users in various locations. As systems are being developed, it is common for a number of incompatible formats to emerge, each produced by manufacturers who hope that theirs will become the "standard". Teaching machines suffered from a lack of uniformity that caused problems with conversion of programs, manufacturing, and cost-effective programming (Finn & Weintraub, 1967). In the early 1970's, a number of incompatible 1/2" open reel videotape systems were marketed which used tapes that physically looked the same, but couldn't be exchanged. It was not until the emergence of the EIAJ standard for these machines that they became a viable delivery medium.
That lesson was learned and remembered by the same manufacturers when the 3/4" U-Matic standard and then the VHS standards were adopted for the next wave of videotape machines. The result of this is obvious: video has become the most widely used training delivery system today (Industry Report, 1996). Interactive multimedia still suffer from a lack of standardization. Even though the field has narrowed down to primarily two operating systems, Windows and Macintosh OS, there is still enough variability in computer sound cards, file formats, screen displays, and other peripherals that one cannot count on a CD-ROM being able to run reliably on a wide variety of machines. And more elaborate Web pages still rely on specific browsers or plug-ins to work properly.
When a number of incompatible standards are released on the market, we can be sure that most of them will be abandoned. This leaves us with expensive, orphaned systems: newer programs won't play back on them, and the time and money invested in learning to use the system and producing programs for it is wasted. This situation happened time and time again throughout the 80s in the release of new videodisc / computer systems; many of them were "de-released" within one year of their being marketed to thousands of training centers.
Lack of local production ability
Although a broad base of generic "off-the-shelf" software is generally needed to make a new hardware system a success, increasingly organizations want to be able to produce custom materials as well. If this is difficult or expensive, potential adopters may shy away. For example, many teaching machines had software available to be bought, but producing one's own programs was often next to impossible. Because many relied on strange configurations of tape and film, the software needed to be put into its final physical form by the manufacturers of the hardware. Currently, CD-ROMs suffer a similar fate. The hardware and technique for mastering CD-ROMs is far from widespread, and the design, production, and programming aspects of this technology may be perceived as overwhelming. Because smaller firms do not (or feel they do not) have the ability to produce interactive multimedia in-house, they use outside contractors who in many cases may be too expensive to afford.
Especially in corporate training,
much of the content needed to be taught is proprietary and unique to a
given company. Beyond teaching something standard like a new version of
a word-processing program or basic principles of supervision, it's generally
not possible for training centers to buy programming. Moreover, there is
increasingly rapid change in the content of almost every course; this means
that even if a custom program is created by a production house, the material
may be out of date within a few months. Unless the client has the source
material (like the open code for a CD-ROM), has the necessary hardware
and software, and knows how to use it to update the material, the program
is outdated and useless. Hundreds of training departments have bought essentially
"frozen" programs and now find that the production houses either charge
too much for updating, or have gone out of business (and nobody else has
the source code).
What characterizes successful implementations of media for learning
Again, in looking back over my 1989 research, I found that the factors
characterizing successful technologies and successful implementation of
those technologies remained constant. The determining factors are not the
technical characteristics of the media — they are the social impacts of
the way the applications are proposed and constructed.
Participatory design
In order to make new information technologies work, new design strategies are needed, both at the system level and the program level. The first element of a new model for information technology design is grassroots participation in the development of hardware, software, and policies for their use. This was documented by research at least a decade ago (Kearsley, 1984) and has been reiterated today. Often new communication systems are "dropped" on organizations from upper management without having previous input from potential users. This results in a "we" and "them" perspective with regard to the ownership of the new technology. "Scientific management principles, which still permeate many aspects of modern organizations, result in an implementation of technology which fails to take full advantage of the potential both of people as organization members and of the technology itself. In contrast, in a sociotechnical systems approach based on systems theory, technology is designed and implemented in ways which enhance the potential of both individuals and the technology itself, in accordance with organizational needs" (Herndon, 1997).
Schrock (1985) commented on the relatively small impact that instructional technology has had on teachers and trainers. She postulates that we have been "insensitive to the role that the human element plays" (p. 16) and reports that faculty often perceive instructional technologists as "outsiders". Decisions about when and how to use new media as well as how the content should be shaped need to be formulated from the bottom-up. In reviewing the literature on innovation as early as the 40's and 50's, Malinconico (1983) found that the acceptability of a change is determined by how much and how well those affected by the change participated in its implementation. It is interesting to note that the fastest-growing medium, the Internet, was essentially cooperatively designed by a group of colleagues. It was not a "product" created by a "vendor", nor were standards imposed by any one group. No one "runs" or "owns" the Internet and standards for Web pages are still decided by a consortium, not a manufacturer.
New hardware won't succeed without an infusion of new techniques appropriate to the new technologies. Although some instructional design researchers and practitioners hold that standard instructional design models are useful irrespective of the medium involved, others disagree. Additional research and practice need to inform new instructional design models and writing techniques, especially if we are to make better use of interactive media. The two design factors that are most crucial in the successful implementation of new media are participatory design and effective use of new modalities. If programs (especially interactive media) only represent the thinking of one subject-matter expert, they will face resistance and criticism of those who have other points of view. Many programs fail because their approach is too narrow and not truly representative. Secondly, many programs using new media fail because they simply re-package existing content and designs into some new box … like recording a lecture from the back of the room with a video camera and calling this "instructional television", or porting a book onto a series of Web pages, and calling it interactive courseware. We need to truly understand what innovative modalities are afforded by new media, and design learning systems to make appropriate use of them.
Cultural compatibility
When we consider instructional technologies, we need to be aware of maintaining compatibility with current values and systems. Designers need to collectively be alert to developing systems which complement the overall social structure and the corporate culture in particular, keeping in mind legal and financial considerations. Dede (1980; 1981; 1983) argued that new information technologies in education could create many consequences for society, and that those implications are highly dependent on how they are implemented. He predicted that a new model of instruction would evolve which combines teachers and machines. Rather than conceiving of models through which instructional designers fabricate systems to replace teachers or trainers, we need to develop ways to enable those teachers or trainers to themselves create technologies which supplement their own roles. In fact, it appears hopeless to even attempt to replace traditional face-to-face communication. Media such as teleconferencing will not substitute for travel or meetings. "Travel and telecommunications are better seen as interrelated elements in a social context which they help create" (Alberton, 1977, p. 42).
Our society still holds great stake in learning from people, not a faceless machine or a program created by a committee. That's one reason why online communication is so enticing; one is still communicating with a person … typos and all. Furthermore, one important role of many instructional situations is certification and assessment by the instructor. If we take a college course via a CD-ROM, whom can we ask to write us recommendations for employment in that area? If a manager wants to know who some of the most promising sales managers might be, will the training department still be a source of that knowledge or will everything be tied up in one set of statistics recorded on a hard drive based on trainees' use of a CD-ROM? If we want to orient new restaurant servers or bank tellers and have them understand the corporate culture and feel supported in their new roles, can we do this by having them watch a digital video over the company's Intranet and take exams via computer?
Standardization
Manufacturers of new hardware systems should be mindful of the lessons learned during the development of video systems: hardware is sold by software, and the only way to establish a base of accessible and exchangeable software is to establish standardization. The constant push for new heights of technical performance must be moderated by the need for stability. Internet Web pages, slides, overhead transparencies and video enjoy wide use because one can find appropriate playback hardware virtually anywhere.
As we implement new technologies in organizations, we should strive to make programs that are "state of the art", not "state of the technology". That is, programs should have high standards for design, but be able to run on the lowest common denominator of playback hardware available in the organization. The more reliable the programs are and the more consistent they are in terms of user interface, the better the chance of being accepted well.
Local Production
Finally, new media technologies need to be able to be controlled locally. No matter how excellent and plentiful the commercial software for any given medium might be, increasingly individuals and organizations want to create their own programming. Look at the technologies that have succeeded: video, slides, overheads, and Web pages … all media that people can create themselves. Even though many authoring programs for multimedia can build instructional programs that have many more features than a Web page, Web pages are easier to create and update. And it only takes a simple word processor to create html code for Web pages.
In implementing new technologies, organizations should spend more money on internal training of designers and authors than on contracting out for "glitzy" productions. Even when buying off-the-shelf software, trainers should look for programs that can be customized for their own situations. For example, my company designed an authoring tool for Lederle Pharmaceutical Company that allowed CBT programs to be designed and produced in English, but for managers in local markets across the world easily update and revise those programs to be relevant to their local selling styles and medical regulations. Before this, the managers in other countries resisted American programs because they were inaccurate or inappropriate for their culture; however, they also did not have the resources to completely design and produce their own programs from the ground up.
As educational technologists, we clearly are faced with some challenges: much of what we have developed doesn't really "work". The technology itself is unreliable and/or the implementation of it is not accepted well by managers, instructors, or learners. By coming to grips with this fact, we might more eagerly explore the areas of diffusion of innovation, marketing, and organizational communication to more effectively channel our efforts.
As computer and video technology has become more widespread in everyday life and work, there is less resistance to technology in education and training. However, in my estimation, the philosophy of education and training that is embodied, either in a traditional classroom or in high-tech media, is rapidly changing and this is why many programs are not accepted well. Allow me to explain: A decade or so ago, it was a fairly widespread assumption that there was content that could be identified and agreed-upon, and that the job of education and training was to somehow "deliver" that content so that it could be learned by students. Today the situation is much different, especially in corporate training. Much of what is important to learn cannot be pre-defined by some content expert: situations are "messier", less can be predicted, there is not always agreement on procedures or approaches, and the most important knowledge generally comes from the field in unexpected ways. So although there are some standard concepts and skills that may need to be taught, these are generally only the most rudimentary foundations. So even though managers and learners may not be able to articulate this change in philosophy and environment, they still know that something is fundamentally wrong with "canned" instruction … whether the "can" be a television set or an Intranet. They may initially blame the technology, but I find that when investigating situations in my consulting engagements a bit further, it is generally the assumptions and policies of the learning system that are misaligned.
My advice to students and clients who are trying to learn to predict better which technologies to adopt and how to how to implement them is to look at the cultural changes in our society and our organizations. Some of the most dramatic changes in corporations are:
These social, cultural, and business
factors can easily be accommodated by new designs and new technologies
for learning. In fact, perhaps the most important change we can make is
to begin referring to these systems media for learning rather than
technologies
for instruction. Millions of dollars and years of human effort have
been consumed by poor implementations of new devices for education and
training. Perhaps the lessons learned during the past fifty years of experimentation
will position us better as stewards of learning resources in the next century.
Berkman, D. (1976). Instructional television: the medium whose future has passed?. Educational Technology. 16(5), 39-44.
Bohlin, R.M., Evans, A.D. & Milheim, W. (1987). Survey of interactive video: current and future applications. Unpublished paper, Kent State University College of Education, Ohio.
Bolton, T. (1983). Perceptual factors that influence the adoption of videotext technology: results of the channel 2000 field test. Journal of Broadcasting 27(2), 141-153.
Brewer, B. (1988, March/April). Getting "it" to happen. CD-ROM Review, 26-30.
Dede, C. (1980). Educational technology: the next ten years. Instructional Innovator. 25(3), 17-23.
Dede, C. (1981). Educational, social, and ethical implications of technological innovation. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology. 18(4), 204-13.
Dede, C. (1983). The likely evolution of computer use in schools. Educational Leadership. 41(1), 22-24.
Eikenberg, D. (1987, September 4). Honeymoon's over for interactive; time to grow up. Backstage. 1,8,38,40.
Finn, J. & Weintraub, R. (1967, May). An analysis of audiovisual machines for individual program presentation. Research memorandum number two. University of Southern California School of Medicine. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED029486).
Gayeski, D. (1981) When the audience becomes the producer: a model for participatory media design. Educational Technology 21(6), 11-14.
Gayeski, D.(1989, February). Why information technologies fail. Educational Technology. 9-17
Gayeski, D. (1995). Benchmarking multimedia development in colleges and universities. College and University Media Review. 1(2), 7-20.
Gayeski, D. (1996). Profiles in innovation: Managing corporate communication in changing times. Ithaca, NY: OmniCom Associates.
Geis, G. (1987,July). Comprehensive history of teaching machines. Performance and Instruction. 26 (5), 3-4.
Gordon, G.N. (1976). Instructional television: yesterday's magic?. Educational Technology. 16(5), 39-44.
Graphic, Visualization, & Usability Center (1997). Seventh WWW User Survey. Atlanta: Georgia Tech Research Corporation.
Greene, A. (1979). Poor ratings for two-way television. Change 11(4), 56-57,72.
Heinich, R. (1985). Instructional technology and the structure of education. Educational Communication and Technology Journal. 33(1), 9-15.
Hempstead, R.R. (1976). Push-button education in University of Maryland's Nonprint Media Lab. in P.J. Sleeman & D.M. Rockwell, eds.. Instructional Media and Technology. (pp 303-308). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Huthcinson, and Ross, Inc.
Herndon, S.L. (1997). Theory and practice: Implications for the implementation of communication technology in organizations. Journal of Business Communication (34)1, 121-129.
Industry Report. (1996, October). Training. 53-67.
Kearsley, G. (1984). Training and Technology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kearsely, G. (1985). What makes a computer think it can teach?. In D. M. Gayeski. & D.V. Williams. Interactive Media. (pp. 111-115). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Kearsley, G. & Seidel, R.J. (1985). Automation in training and education. Human Factors, 2 (1), 61-74.
Kiesler, S. (1986, January / February). The hidden messages in computer networks. Harvard Business Review, pp. 46-55.
Krendl, K.A., et al. (1986). Assessing new instructional technologies: interactive video learning tools. Spectrum. 4(3), 3-7.
Malinconico. S. M. (1983). Hearing the resistance. Library Journal. 108(2), 111-113.
McLean, L.M. (1985) Seeking information on interactive video: the information sources and strategies used by corporate training developers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED259719).
McNeil, D.R. & Wall, M.N. (1985). The University of Mid-America: a personal postscript. Change. 15(4), 48-52.
Miller, R.L. (1987). Compatibility of interactive videodisc systems. Falls Church, VA.: Future Systems, Inc.
Nixon, L.D. (1970). Remote access instructional-learning system (RAILS). Audiovisual Instruction. 15 (10), 42-45.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Alfred P. Knopf.
Robinson, R.S. and West, P.C. (1986, January) Interactive cable television: an evaluation study. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Las Vegas, NE.
Saettler, P. (1968). A history of instructional technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salerno, L.M. (1985). What happened to the computer revolution? Harvard Business Review. 63(6), 129-138.
Schachter, R. (1975). A planning and development proposal. Unpublished paper. State University of New York at Buffalo, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED104380).
Schrock, S. A. (1985). Faculty perceptions of instructional development and the success / failure of an instructional development program: a naturalistic study. Educational Communication and Technology Journal. 33(1), 16-25.
Shorenstein, S.A. (1978). Pulling the plug on instructional TV. Change. 10(10), 36-39.
Singer, I.J. (1970). At will and at once: the audio-video dial access information retrieval system. Unpublished paper. Academy for Educational Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED039714).
Stern, C.M. (1987). Teaching the distance learner using new technology. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 15(6), 407-418.
Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil. New York: Anchor Books.
VanWyck, W.F. (1976). "Reducing Teacher Resistance to Innovation - An Updated Perspective" in P.J. Sleeman & D.M. Rockwell (eds). Instructional Media and Technology. (pp. 291-296). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Huthcinson, and Ross, Inc.
Wedman, John F. (1986, January) Educational
computing inservice design; implications from teachers' concerns research.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Las Vegas, NE.
Diane M. Gayeski, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Corporate Communication at Ithaca College and a Partner in OmniCom Associates, a provider of workshops, design, and consultation in organizational communication and learning based in Ithaca, NY. She is a contributing editor to this magazine.
E-mail: gayeski@omnicomassociates.com
Back to OmniCom Associates home page
Copyright 1997 OmniCom Associates all rights reserved