# Computer-based instruction

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726>\
**Category:** CSG1997\
**Created:** [February 4, 1997, 12:03am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726 "1997-02-04T00:03:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 9\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CCHERPAS](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@CCHERPAS](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/CCHERPAS)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1997, 12:03am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/1 "1997-02-04T00:03:37Z")

</div>

[From Chris Cherpas (970203.1356 PT)]  
&nbsp;&nbsp;[re Bruce Gregory (970131.1030 EST)]

BG:

> I am not sure that there is a "PCT-based education" except in  
> the following sense: PCT is a theory of purposive action;

cc:  
...including the purposive actions of curriculum developers?

BG:

> PCT illuminates what does not work in education very well, but  
> it suggests, to me at least, that in order to work, education  
> must look very different than it does today.

cc:  
Please explain: how does PCT illuminate what does not work in  
education very well. Let's consider some examples.

How must/would education look very different than it does today?  
You have a vision? Something in mind?

BG:

> I am suspicious of computer-based instruction

cc:  
I am suspicious of teacher-based instruction. Look at the  
results. We'll better understand the role of teacher-based  
instruction when computer-based instruction has become  
established in all our schools. (Or did you think that  
teachers were eternally protected from the industrial revolution?)

BG:

> ...because it [computer-based instruction] seems  
> to be based on the assumption that there are a series of hoops  
> I can ask you to jump through that will lead to your learning  
> something. Everything I know about PCT tells me this is  
> probably wrong.

cc:  
Ah, probabilistic reasoning!  
Computer-based instruction is based on assumptions closer to these:  
1. Computers provide a means to implement, and collect data on, individualized  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;educational processes happening within less-than-one-second time intervals  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and across long time spans (years, decades);  
2. Computers provide a means for indexing, storing, and retrieving  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;a repository of knowledge, including interactive programs  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;intended to facilitate learning for individual students;

Nothing I know about PCT refutes the notion that computer-based instruction  
is worth pursuing as a way to implement and study an effective educational  
process. How do \_you\_ study educational processes? How do \_you\_ individualize  
instruction?

Assumptions aside, I can model and show systematic changes in measures of  
individual academic performance with computer-based instruction. What does  
your knowledge about the Nature of Science tell you about that? Or were the  
presumed assumptions too disturbing, too deeply flawed, to even \_consider\_ the  
data? (Please, don't let me disturb your opinions with facts and statistics.  
Months ago, I offerred CSGNET subscribers copies of an article which supplied  
quite a lot of data. Perhaps you would learn nothing from studying such data.)

cc:

> > The first consideration is still what perceptions you -- the course  
> > developer -- are seeking to control. In other words, you have  
> > standards for what is competence in a student of "the nature of  
> > science," stated in terms of what variables they should be  
> > controlling. Can you provide a list of eduational objectives  
> > that are translated into PCT terms? Then you use a version of the  
> > Test for controlled variables to see that students are controlling well,  
> > poorly, or not at all.

BG:

> This implies that I should use the students as "affordances" for  
> matching my own pictures. I agree that this is what happens  
> traditionally, but I think it has little to do with learning.

cc:  
You have a more direct means than the Test for studying whether  
a student is controlling variables you consider important?

How do \_you\_ perceive students in a way that has more than a little  
to do with learning? Don't you control your perceptions of students,  
trying to get your perceptions of them to "match your own pictures"  
of what you want them to achieve? Do you have any goals as an educator?

Perhaps you'd like to share with us what counts for you as learning, at least  
enough to clarify how you would detect when learning is occurring? How can you  
tell if someone is benefitting from taking your courses?

cc:

> > I agree totally, but the whole enterprise of education is predicated  
> > on someone being able to improve \_somebody else's\_ ability to  
> > control.

BG:

> If PCT tells us anything about education it is that this  
> assumption is deeply flawed.

cc:  
The logical complement of this "deeply flawed assumption" is that  
there is an instance of educating when someone is \_not\_ able to  
improve somebody else's ability to control. Are you saying that  
educating can be accomplished without being able to (as an educator)  
improve someone else's (the student's) ability to control?

What are these teachers being paid for? Let's replace them with computers!-)

If educating by means of "a series of hoops I ask you to jump through"  
is deeply flawed, to what alternative are you comparing it?

Regards,  
cc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1997, 1:53am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/2 "1997-02-04T01:53:28Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (970203.1805 MST)]

Chris Cherpas (970203.1356 PT)--

> cc:  
> I am suspicious of teacher-based instruction. Look at the  
> results. We'll better understand the role of teacher-based  
> instruction when computer-based instruction has become  
> established in all our schools. (Or did you think that  
> teachers were eternally protected from the industrial revolution?)

I think computer-based instruction has a lot of potential good in it. But  
while I certainly had my share of bad teachers, I don't think they were bad  
because they weren't computers. They were bad because they didn't know their  
subjects, because they were angry and controlling, because they didn't  
understand the kinds of difficulties a student would have, because they were  
inaudible or incomprehensible, because they didn't like children, and so on  
down the list of human frailties. If you're going to compare computer-aided  
learning with teacher-aided learning, you should pick only the best  
teachers, just as you pick only the best programs. Otherwise the comparison  
is meaningless.

The main thing a computer can't (yet) do is answer questions and help solve  
problems of understanding. You can't pause in the program and say, "Wait, I  
don't see how you got from the first step to the second step." And you can't  
say "I'm discouraged, I'll never understand this," and expect anything but a  
mechanical return to a previous step. The computer can't say "Well, let's  
talk about that. When did you start getting discouraged?" And the computer  
would never say, "Are you still having problems with your father coming home  
drunk every night?"

A teacher is more than a device for conveying instruction, and a student is  
more than a device for delivering correct responses. A lot of life is lived  
in classrooms, interacting directly with other people, students as well as  
teachers. Would that chunk of life be more worth living if it took place in  
a cubicle with only a computer for company?

Our time in school is not just a preparation for adult life. It's part of  
our lives that we will never get back. Many people enjoy school, like their  
teachers and love some, and look back on school days with nostalgia. An  
important part of young life is learning to get along with other people, to  
develop good relationships with peers and adults, to gain confidence not  
just with "subjects" but with other people. And to have fun, not just with a  
computer screen. I don't think many people would look back with nostalgia if  
their school was teacherless and their main companion was a 486DX100.

It may be that some parts of learning would happen best through using a  
well-designed computer program. Less time would be needed for rote learning  
of rules and memorization of facts like multiplication tables. I'm not  
against computer-aided learning. But no computer program is going to have  
the richness of a human personality, or serve as a role model by acting,  
speaking, and being a certain way that kids can look up to and imitate. No  
computer is going to help kids learn to be human, and that's MOST of what a  
good school is about.

Chris, you're in a shaky position on this subject. You make your living  
developing computer-based instructional programs that compete with live  
teaching. You evidently have a very low opinion of teachers -- you'd like to  
get rid of 'em all. You shouldn't wonder if some of us can't tell whether  
you're giving us an unbiased opinion, a commercial, or a review of an  
unfortunate personal history with teachers. My life would have been very  
different without Miss Poquet to forgive me, love me, and teach me how to  
use English. Maybe you never had a teacher like that.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Abbott](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@Bruce\_Abbott](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Abbott)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1997, 4:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/3 "1997-02-04T16:58:52Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Abbott (970204.1200 EST)]

> Bill Powers (970203.1805 MST)

> The main thing a computer can't (yet) do is answer questions and help solve  
> problems of understanding. You can't pause in the program and say, "Wait, I  
> don't see how you got from the first step to the second step." And you can't  
> say "I'm discouraged, I'll never understand this," and expect anything but a  
> mechanical return to a previous step. The computer can't say "Well, let's  
> talk about that. When did you start getting discouraged?" And the computer  
> would never say, "Are you still having problems with your father coming home  
> drunk every night?"

A well-written program could \_conceivably\_ allow the student to ask such  
questions as the first one and attempt to deal with them in a logical  
fashion (perhaps beginning with a series of well-designed questions designed  
to identify the nature of the student's confusion), but I agree  
whole-heartedly with your view on the importance of the human element. A  
serious problem with the current educational system is precisely that it is  
not designed to give the individual attention to students that they need and  
deserve.

Not too long ago I was listening to one of those local morning call-in talk  
shows on the radio as I drove to work. The topic was education and this old  
geezer had called in to state his opinion that all this modern stuff with  
computers in the classroom and all was unnecessary, since he had been able  
to get a wonderful education in Miss Marple's one-room country schoolhouse,  
which had none of these "improvements." It never occurred to this guy that  
Miss Marple had only maybe 12 students \_total\_, with only a couple at any  
given grade level. When Miss Marple assigned her tenth graders to write an  
essay about Democracy, she had all of two essays to go over and add her  
editorial remarks to. Not only that, but the older students in the class  
could help the younger ones (and one of the best ways to learn a topic is to  
try to teach it to someone else). In effect these students were being  
individually tutored.

Fast forward to the system I experienced: Forty of us kids crammed into a  
classroom with one teacher, and after seventh grade, each teacher greeting a  
different group of 40 students each hour. You were lucky if the teacher  
even knew your name, and things are no better today.

Recently in Indiana, the state legislature required universities to begin  
implementing what is called "distance learning." The idea is that there are  
many state citizens who for one reason or another are not able to "go"  
(literally) to college, so the classes are to be "brought" to them, via such  
devices as televised courses and video "conferencing." The core idea here  
seems to be that one instructor can handle an infinite number of students,  
that instruction is scale-insensitive. Theoretically you could have one  
"master lecturer" deliver a course to the entire human population; grades  
would then be determined, I presume, by some kind of automated scoring  
system, which pretty much constrains testing to a multiple-choice format.  
If you want my opinion concerning what is wrong with the educational system  
today, it is this idea that education can be mass-produced.

\_Properly\_ constructed interactive computer programs can restore something  
of the individualized feedback-sensitive attention that has been lost with  
the advent of high student-to-teacher ratios, but they cannot restore those  
other crucial functions you mentioned. The solution, in my view, is to give  
up the notion that one teacher can adequately serve the needs of  
dozens-to-hundreds of students, and hire a sufficient number to keep those  
ratios low. Miss Marple simply can't handle the load imposed by having to  
read, score, and provide individualized feedback to students at the rate of  
sixty essays per week, let alone becoming familiar with her students and  
their problems. We don't have more teachers in the public school systems  
because teachers cost money, and we want to do education on the cheap. So  
we pretend that one teacher can deal effectively with a hundred or more  
students, then complain about the poor quality of the teaching that results,  
and blame the teacher.

It is, of course, entirely possible to provide information about a topic in  
such a way that it can be understood by most students who have the  
background, study skills, and motivation required to do so. But that is  
instruction, not teaching. You don't even necessarily need a teacher for  
that; a good textbook will often do.

Regards,

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CCHERPAS](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@CCHERPAS](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/CCHERPAS)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1997, 8:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/4 "1997-02-04T20:30:21Z")

</div>

[From Chris Cherpas (970204.1104 PT)]  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[re Bill Powers (970203.1805 MST)]

BP:

> But while I certainly had my share of bad teachers, I don't think they were bad  
> because they weren't computers. They were bad because they didn't know their  
> subjects,

cc:  
Computers can represent knowledge, organized for teaching, in more subjects  
and in more depth than the average teacher, let alone the bad teacher...

BP:

> because they were angry and controlling,

cc:  
Computers do not get angry; I'll leave the "controlling" for you to unpack...

BP:

> because they didn't understand the kinds of difficulties a student would have,

cc:  
Computers can maintain longitudinal models of each student, including a history  
of "difficulties" the computer was able to detect...

BP:

> because they were inaudible or incomprehensible,

cc:  
Computers for education provide an individualized multi-media environment  
which includes earphones with a volume control, the ability to interrupt  
and back up, look up a term in a glossary, or (in some programs) type  
"I don't understand" without any interruption to a group-paced class...

BP:

> because they didn't like children,

cc:  
Computers do not dislike children.

BP:

> and so on down the list of human frailties.

cc:  
Computers represent the frailties of humans, but can be readily re-programmed,  
unlike humans.

BP:

> If you're going to compare computer-aided learning with teacher-aided learning,  
> you should pick only the best teachers, just as you pick only the best  
> programs. Otherwise the comparison is meaningless.

cc:  
Sorry if I sounded like I was comparing the best programs to the not-best  
teachers. But, in general, Mr. Scientist Man: I would want to study  
distributions, not just the best. I would like to learn something about  
process here. Otherwise the comparison is less meaningful.

By the way, are you concerned that books are created to replace teachers?  
(I believe there are also those who claim writing to be the work of the devil.)

BP:

> The main thing a computer can't (yet) do is answer questions and help solve  
> problems of understanding. You can't pause in the program and say, "Wait, I  
> don't see how you got from the first step to the second step." And you can't  
> say "I'm discouraged, I'll never understand this," and expect anything but a  
> mechanical return to a previous step. The computer can't say "Well, let's  
> talk about that. When did you start getting discouraged?" And the computer  
> would never say, "Are you still having problems with your father coming home  
> drunk every night?"

cc:  
The way we get from what a computer can't do (yet) to what it can do is  
to try. Are you saying it's not worth trying to get a computer to do these  
things?

BP:  
A teacher is more than a device for conveying instruction,

cc:  
So is a computer...

BP:

> and a student is more than a device for delivering correct responses.

cc:  
A student is a device for controlling perceptions. Some of those perceptions  
involve what are called "correct responses."

BP:

> A lot of life is lived in classrooms, interacting directly with other people,  
> students as well as teachers. Would that chunk of life be more worth living if  
> it took place in a cubicle with only a computer for company?

cc:  
The point is not to restrict the student to a cubicle with only a computer  
for company; the point is to not restrict the student to a corral with a  
herd of conspecifics, when a computer in a cubicle could provide the student  
with company as an alternative.

BP:

> Our time in school is not just a preparation for adult life. It's part of  
> our lives that we will never get back. Many people enjoy school, like their  
> teachers and love some, and look back on school days with nostalgia. An  
> important part of young life is learning to get along with other people, to  
> develop good relationships with peers and adults, to gain confidence not  
> just with "subjects" but with other people. And to have fun, not just with a  
> computer screen.

cc:  
Yes, these are the idiots that go into the field of education, dragging the  
next generation down yet another few rungs of the cultural evolutionary ladder,  
as they relive their cheerleading and "first cigarette" halcyon days!-)

It's strictly "one step forward, two steps back" on the American eduation scene.  
I like fun too: that's why this post is so full of fast talk and witty repartee.

BP:

> I don't think many people would look back with nostalgia if  
> their school was teacherless and their main companion was a 486DX100.

cc:  
Bill, nostalgia's for losers. How about a Pentium166?

BP:

> It may be that some parts of learning would happen best through using a  
> well-designed computer program. Less time would be needed for rote learning  
> of rules and memorization of facts like multiplication tables.

cc:  
God almighty, he has seen the light!

BP:

> I'm not against computer-aided learning. But no computer program is going to

have the richness of a human personality,

cc:  
No will any human have the richness of a well-programmed simulated personality,  
just as no particular human personality has the richness of the personalities  
in a well-written book. There are different richnesses, and they come in  
different packages.

BP:

> or serve as a role model by acting, speaking, and being a certain way that kids  
> can look up to and imitate.

cc:  
Jesus. Give me a world without the necessity for the hero, for someone to look  
up to. A computer program, at \_its\_ best, represents the combined intelligences  
of every human in recorded history. It is animated, simulated culture. If we  
want to bow down to some idol, let it at least be the achievements of history as  
a whole, not some cult of personality.

BP:

> No computer is going to help kids learn to be human, and that's MOST of what a  
> good school is about.

cc:  
How do you detect when someone is learning to be human?  
How do GOOD schools help kids learn to be human?  
Would someone who did not attend school learn to be human less?

BP:

> Chris, you're in a shaky position on this subject. You make your living  
> developing computer-based instructional programs that compete with live  
> teaching.

cc:  
Because of my "shaky" position, I can talk about the actual use of  
computer-based instruction, rather than communicating from an armchair  
position. Listen and learn. I'm trying to give you a survival kit here  
and you're not listening.

The computer-based instructional programs I develop do not compete with live  
teaching. Teachers want be able to individualize instruction, but cannot  
because they are stretched to the limit about 20 times over. Teachers want  
to use instructional technology to broaden the classroom's sensory reach.  
Teachers want to be able to evaluate their students' progress -- they  
want to know what makes a difference. An "ILS" (Integrated Learning  
System) attempts to help to achieve these goals.

BP:

> You evidently have a very low opinion of teachers -- you'd like to  
> get rid of 'em all.

cc:  
Are you referring to this statement?

> > What are these teachers being paid for? Let's replace them with computers!-)

I did not intend a literal interpretation.

BP:

> You shouldn't wonder if some of us can't tell whether you're giving us an  
> unbiased opinion, a commercial, or a review of an unfortunate personal history  
> with teachers.

cc:  
Why not all three? However, my job is not to advertise products which  
my company develops, so I can't claim any credit there. I do remember  
being very bored in school, thinking that the time could have been  
better managed by the "experts" in charge. As far as the unbiased  
opinion, I would agree that I have an opinion. My opinion is that:

The computer represents an advance that can be used in education, and  
that it will probably change the role(s) of the teacher from having to  
do everything to having more time to do what the computer can't.

BP:

> My life would have been very different without Miss Poquet to forgive me,  
> love me, and teach me how to use English. Maybe you never had a teacher like  
> that.

cc:  
A good teacher, equipped with a computerized learning system can do even  
better. Mr. Nofsinger was an excellent science teacher and my first and  
second grade teacher (Mrs. Hubbard for both) was a real treat; but let's  
not romanticize our way out of a reasonable position: they could probably  
have done better. There's no shame in that. The shame is in not applying  
what we can to make things better. So why not computers in education?

> > 1. Computers provide a means to implement, and collect data on, individualized  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;educational processes happening within less-than-one-second time intervals  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;and across long time spans (years, decades);  
> > 2. Computers provide a means for indexing, storing, and retrieving  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;a repository of knowledge, including interactive programs  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;intended to facilitate learning for individual students;

Best regards,  
cc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hugh\_G\_Petrie](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/ce7236/32.png) [@Hugh\_G\_Petrie](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Hugh_G_Petrie)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1997, 7:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/5 "1997-02-04T19:41:50Z")

</div>

[From Hugh Petrie (970203.1415 EST)]  
[re Chris Cherpas (970203.1356 PT)]

Chris writes

> How do \_you\_ perceive students in a way that has more than a little  
> to do with learning? Don't you control your perceptions of students,  
> trying to get your perceptions of them to "match your own pictures"  
> of what you want them to achieve? Do you have any goals as an educator?
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to share with us what counts for you as learning, at least  
> enough to clarify how you would detect when learning is occurring? How can you  
> tell if someone is benefitting from taking your courses?

This is surely one of the most important questions to ask, maybe the most  
important question for an instructional designer trying to put an  
instructional program on a computer. And, indeed, as several have pointed  
out, we can probably do a fair amount of programming that will allow the  
student to stop and ask questions about the material, what is not  
understood, etc.

However, as both Bill Powers and Bruce Abbott point out in later posts, a  
real live teacher, at least a good one, is controlling not only for  
learning the material, but for the growth and development of the student as  
well. And some of those teachers we all remember so well were able to  
sense disturbances to possibly even higher order goals that they had with  
respect to their students, and were able to put aside the more narrow  
learning goals for the moment to deal with the higher order disturbance to  
the student's growth and development.

Now maybe we can build an instructional program that can do that as well,  
but if we do, we will have solved the problem of artificial intelligence;  
we will have created it.

One of the things that has always attracted me to PCT has been the idea  
that in principle, human control systems could recognize that something is  
reducing disturbances for them without ever having realized in advance that  
this would be so. That, in turn, opens up considerably the standard  
admonitions that we have to make our instructional goals explicit in  
advance and then only evaluate programs in terms of how well they serve  
those goals. The evaluation literature is replete with instances of  
unforseen consequences (both good and bad) that need to be taken account  
of. Complex human control systems with a hierarchy of goals and values do  
that almost automatically. I wonder if an instructional program can?

That, of course, is not to say that we ought not try to design  
instructional programs with PCT in mind. We should, and along those lines,  
I think one of the more promising ideas might be to focus on the ability to  
perceive what it is we want the students to learn. We need to give them  
lots of models of what the successful learning is we are after and work  
with them on being able to "see" that in practice. I guess this is a  
matter both of getting them to have the right reference signals as well as  
making sure their perceptual input functions are doing their jobs.

A real life example is that researchers in literacy instruction have only  
found out in the past decade or so that children from literacy-impoverished  
families (families with no magnetic letters on the refrigerator or parents  
who read to the kids, etc.) had no idea what the teacher meant when she  
said, "look at the first word\>" These kids sometimes can't perceive the  
difference between a word and a letter. (It's analogous to the phoneme  
discussion recently).

So my first effort at a design principle would be to ask what is it that  
the teacher wants to have the students have as a reference signal and where  
can I find models of that for the students.

Cheers,

Hugh

> **···**
>
> ===========+++++++++++===========\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*===========+++++++++++===========
> 
> Hugh G. Petrie 716-645-2491  
> 367 Baldy Hall FAX: 716-645-2479  
> University at Buffalo  
> Buffalo, NY 14260  
> USA HGPETRIE@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory9](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory9](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory9)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1997, 5:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/6 "1997-02-04T17:33:59Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (970204.1235 EST)]

Bruce Abbott (970204.1200 EST)

> Not too long ago I was listening to one of those local morning call-in talk  
> shows on the radio as I drove to work. The topic was education and this old  
> geezer had called in to state his opinion that all this modern stuff with  
> computers in the classroom and all was unnecessary, since he had been able  
> to get a wonderful education in Miss Marple's one-room country schoolhouse,  
> which had none of these "improvements." It never occurred to this guy that  
> Miss Marple had only maybe 12 students \_total\_, with only a couple at any  
> given grade level. When Miss Marple assigned her tenth graders to write an  
> essay about Democracy, she had all of two essays to go over and add her  
> editorial remarks to. Not only that, but the older students in the class  
> could help the younger ones (and one of the best ways to learn a topic is to  
> try to teach it to someone else). In effect these students were being  
> individually tutored.

Maybe we should think about this as a model for future schools.  
Sorting students by age is arbitrary and counter-productive. My  
father went a one-room school house and learned English and the  
curriculum in the process. (He also walked three miles each way  
through the blinding snow, but that is another story...)

I agree with your analysis and your sentiments.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor3)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1997, 4:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/7 "1997-02-04T16:57:33Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 970204 11:45]

> Bill Powers (970203.1805 MST)]

> The computer can't say "Well, let's  
> talk about that. When did you start getting discouraged?" And the computer  
> would never say, "Are you still having problems with your father coming home  
> drunk every night?"

That sounds awfully like the old "Eliza" program of the 1960's. But I think  
your point is valid, in that Eliza worked by reference to what the "user"  
had just said, rather than with respect to a backlog of data from the  
student. On the other hand, anecdotal evidence suggests that at least some  
Eliza users felt it to be very personal, perhaps even prying. What Eliza  
said was necessarily related to reference signals internal to the user  
rather than to any reference signals in Eliza, and that presumably was  
important.

> I don't think many people would look back with nostalgia if  
> their school was teacherless and their main companion was a 486DX100.

Perhaps not, but again going back a couple of decades, I think it was  
Patrick Suppes who experimented with a mathematics-teaching program in a  
poor region of Mississippi. As he reported it, not only did the students  
learn better than did similar students in other schools, but the students  
liked the computer "teacher" because it was "more human" (his words, as  
I remember them) than their human teacher. It didn't rap their knuckles  
with a ruler for getting the wrong answer, but tried to guide them  
through their problem until they understood.

> It may be that some parts of learning would happen best through using a  
> well-designed computer program. Less time would be needed for rote learning  
> of rules and memorization of facts like multiplication tables. I'm not  
> against computer-aided learning. But no computer program is going to have  
> the richness of a human personality, or serve as a role model by acting,  
> speaking, and being a certain way that kids can look up to and imitate. No  
> computer is going to help kids learn to be human, and that's MOST of what a  
> good school is about.

Agreed, but a bad teacher can be as bad a role model as a good teacher is  
a good one. I think much of my direction in life was due to having had  
two inspiring mathematics teachers in late primary and early secondary school,  
and lousy chemistry teachers. If I had had computerized teachers, I imagine  
that the result would have been satisfactory mediocrity. It really depends  
on your standard of human yardstick whether the computer is better.

As an aside--I think we learn more about being human from our direct  
interactions with our playtime peers than from instruction, though I'm  
sure that role models are important.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 1997, 6:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/8 "1997-02-05T18:06:59Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (970205.0955 MST)]

Chris Cherpas (970204.1104 PT) --

> cc:  
> Computers can represent knowledge, organized for teaching, in more  
> subjects and in more depth than the average teacher, let alone the bad  
> teacher...

You're comparing the ideal computer program, with capabilities far beyond  
any that now exist, with the average or bad teacher. That is hardly a  
comparison.

By the way, who programs these computers? God? Are good programmers  
automatically good teachers (in my experience, the better the programmer,  
the more incoherent the explanations)?

> BP:
> 
> > because they were angry and controlling,
> 
> cc:  
> Computers do not get angry; I'll leave the "controlling" for you to unpack...

I was, by implication, pointing out that good teachers don't exhibit these  
frailties. Of course computers don't get angry; neither do good teachers.

> BP:
> 
> > because they didn't understand the kinds of difficulties a student would have,
> 
> cc:  
> Computers can maintain longitudinal models of each student, including a history  
> of "difficulties" the computer was able to detect...

So can a good teacher.

> BP:
> 
> > because they were inaudible or incomprehensible,
> 
> cc:  
> Computers for education provide an individualized multi-media environment  
> which includes earphones with a volume control, the ability to interrupt  
> and back up, look up a term in a glossary, or (in some programs) type  
> "I don't understand" without any interruption to a group-paced class...

So can a good teacher.

> BP:
> 
> > because they didn't like children,
> 
> cc:  
> Computers do not dislike children.

Neither do good teachers. And good teachers are not emotionally indifferent  
to children, while computers are.

> BP:
> 
> > and so on down the list of human frailties.

> > BP:  
> > If you're going to compare computer-aided learning with teacher-aided  
> > learning,  
> > you should pick only the best teachers, just as you pick only the best  
> > programs. Otherwise the comparison is meaningless.
> 
> cc:  
> Sorry if I sounded like I was comparing the best programs to the not-best  
> teachers. But, in general, Mr. Scientist Man: I would want to study  
> distributions, not just the best. I would like to learn something about  
> process here. Otherwise the comparison is less meaningful.

Sure, but when you do that, Mr. Programming Man, you're back to making an  
honest comparison of human vs machine instruction, without any preconceived  
notion that the computer version is better just because it's not human. You  
might even decide that a mixture is better than either one alone.

> By the way, are you concerned that books are created to replace teachers?  
> (I believe there are also those who claim writing to be the work of the devil.)

I just answered that question.

> BP:
> 
> > The main thing a computer can't (yet) do is answer questions and help  
> > solve problems of understanding. You can't pause in the program and say,  
> > "Wait, I don't see how you got from the first step to the second step."  
> > And you can't say "I'm discouraged, I'll never understand this," and  
> > expect anything but a mechanical return to a previous step. The computer  
> > can't say "Well, let's talk about that. When did you start getting  
> > discouraged?" And the computer would never say, "Are you still having  
> > problems with your father coming home drunk every night?"
> 
> cc:  
> The way we get from what a computer can't do (yet) to what it can do is  
> to try. Are you saying it's not worth trying to get a computer to do  
> these things?

As Hugh Petrie said, you're talking about simulating a whole human being.  
You're several light-years from that goal -- and anyway, why not just use  
the human being for what a human being can do?

> BP:
> 
> > A lot of life is lived in classrooms, interacting directly with other  
> > people, students as well as teachers. Would that chunk of life be more  
> > worth living if it took place in a cubicle with only a computer for \>\>company?
> 
> cc:  
> The point is not to restrict the student to a cubicle with only a computer  
> for company; the point is to not restrict the student to a corral with a  
> herd of conspecifics, when a computer in a cubicle could provide the  
> student with company as an alternative.

Herd of conspecifics? Oh, is THAT all we are!

> cc:  
> Yes, these are the idiots that go into the field of education, dragging  
> the next generation down yet another few rungs of the cultural  
> evolutionary ladder, as they relive their cheerleading and "first  
> cigarette" halcyon days!-)

Speaking from your perch at the top of the cultural evolutionary ladder?  
What is this? Computer-aided snobbery? If so, hang on to that program. It  
really works!

Actually, the times I liked best in college involved things like sitting at  
the eyepiece of the 18.5-inch refractor, looking at M13 through a  
low-powered eyepiece, inventing constellations in the cluster like "the Bear  
Paw" and shooting the bull with my buddy Harry Rymer until dawn's early  
light. Or hanging out in a restaurant booth with other friends arguing about  
philosophy and other stuff, or talking over problems with school or teachers  
or life, or reforming the universe. I can't think of a computer I would  
rather have spent those years with. I guess it must have been different for you.

> cc:  
> Bill, nostalgia's for losers. How about a Pentium166?

Those are for nerds. Let's see, what do I want to be -- a loser or a nerd? I  
think I'll pick chocolate.

> BP:
> 
> > It may be that some parts of learning would happen best through using a  
> > well-designed computer program. Less time would be needed for rote learning  
> > of rules and memorization of facts like multiplication tables.
> 
> cc:  
> God almighty, he has seen the light!

I'm impressed. I've never been in a position to show God the light.

> BP:
> 
> > I'm not against computer-aided learning. But no computer program is going  
> > to have the richness of a human personality,
> 
> cc:  
> No will any human have the richness of a well-programmed simulated  
> personality,

You have a much higher opinion of programmers than I do. It's all I can do  
to get a stick figure to reach out and touch something. Where is the  
programmer to get his idea of a "rich personality?" Grolier's Encyclopedia?

> BP:
> 
> > or serve as a role model by acting, speaking, and being a certain way  
> > that kids can look up to and imitate.

> cc:  
> Jesus. Give me a world without the necessity for the hero, for someone to  
> look up to. A computer program, at \_its\_ best, represents the combined  
> intelligences of every human in recorded history.

Not any program I have ever seen. They look more like products of the  
\_average\_ intelligence of a bunch of program-writers who don't have much  
experience with life. Throwing gigabytes of words on line does not  
constitute intelligence.

Anyway, you're going to have a hard time finding a kid who doesn't look up  
to someone. Children aren't born knowing what they want to be. They don't  
even know what's possible. The way you find out what's possible, as in any  
field, is to look first at what's been done. Wasn't there ANYBODY you ever  
admired?

> It is animated, simulated culture.

Just like TV, only it takes itself more seriously.

> If we want to bow down to some idol, let it at least be the achievements  
> of history as a whole, not some cult of personality.

But what do you do if people decide they WANT a cult of personality? Gas  
them? What if they're not interested in the achievements of History as a  
Whole (whoever he is)? Grab them by the necks and MAKE them be interested?  
Is this more of that "behave, dammit" stuff?

> BP:
> 
> > No computer is going to help kids learn to be human, and that's MOST of  
> > what a good school is about.
> 
> cc:  
> How do you detect when someone is learning to be human?

When the person is learning how to take disappointment, grief, and  
discouragement without being destroyed. When the person learns the value of  
loving others as much as the Self. When the person learns how to control  
what matters, and let what doesn't matter go. When the person learns that he  
or she is just like other people, regardless of their station in life,  
education, or bad habits. When the person learns to want others to have what  
they want, even if it's incomprehensible. There's a long list.

> How do GOOD schools help kids learn to be human?

See Ed Ford's program.

> Would someone who did not attend school learn to be human less?

Given the way things are, yes -- because most of the other kids are in  
school. You learn to be human partly by observing what others do and coming  
to understand them. You then understand things about yourself that are hard  
to see from inside. Part of the way we learn to be human is to interact with  
other humans, especially those who have been there and done that.

Eventually, of course, you invent yourself. But when you're a kid, you can't  
get there in one jump.

> BP:
> 
> > Chris, you're in a shaky position on this subject. You make your living  
> > developing computer-based instructional programs that compete with live  
> > teaching.
> 
> cc:  
> Because of my "shaky" position, I can talk about the actual use of  
> computer-based instruction, rather than communicating from an armchair  
> position. Listen and learn. I'm trying to give you a survival kit here  
> and you're not listening.

You can talk about the actual use of computer-based instruction, but  
unfortunately you are also offering \_evaluations\_ of this instruction,  
making up the criteria yourself. What I would like to see is an evaluation  
by someone who has no particular fondness for computer-based or  
teacher-based instruction, but who simply wants to know the pros and cons of  
each. I would pay less attention to anyone who is obviously putting on a  
hard sell for either side.

> BP:
> 
> > You shouldn't wonder if some of us can't tell whether you're giving us an  
> > unbiased opinion, a commercial, or a review of an unfortunate personal  
> > history with teachers.
> 
> cc:  
> Why not all three? However, my job is not to advertise products which  
> my company develops, so I can't claim any credit there.

Only the first is of any lasting value. The commercial aspects have obvious  
effects on one's willingness to discuss, or even look for, drawbacks in the  
product, and the personal history with teachers is hardly a basis for  
drawing universal conclusions: I believe that approach is called anecdotal.

> I do remember  
> being very bored in school, thinking that the time could have been  
> better managed by the "experts" in charge. As far as the unbiased  
> opinion, I would agree that I have an opinion. My opinion is that:
> 
> The computer represents an advance that can be used in education, and  
> that it will probably change the role(s) of the teacher from having to  
> do everything to having more time to do what the computer can't.

No problem with that. I'm not against computers in education. I taught my  
older grandson to run my computer when he was 4 years old. Inside a year, he  
was turning it on, giving the DOS commands to bring up his favorite math  
program (or underwater game, whichever), running it, and shutting it down,  
all from just watching how I did it for him. He learned Windows as soon as I  
got it, and when he found Windows 95 on my notebook, he figured it out right  
away. His little brother learned how to work Paintbrush at 3, although his  
hand was way too small for the mouse. I'm perfectly happy to have my  
grandchildren learning on computers. But I made sure they understood from  
the start who was boss: THEY turn the COMPUTER on. And I don't stand around  
admiring them while they play with it. It's just a thing to use.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ellery\_Lanier](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@Ellery\_Lanier](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Ellery_Lanier)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 1997, 6:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/computer-based-instruction/2726/9 "1997-02-07T18:02:13Z")

</div>

> From Ellery Lanier Feb 6, 97

To Bruce Abbott and CSG.  
Again I take a break from finishing my dissertation.  
Bruce's posting re education brought to mind an amusing memory. When I was  
in elementary or junior high, I was in a most unusual math class. Our male  
teacher who was a lawyer who could get no professional work (It was in the  
depths of the depression),  
had a unique teaching technique. When we worked on problems we were not  
allowed to take our eyes off our papers. The teacher would silently glide  
around the room and survey what we were doing. If we made a mistake, he  
would see it and instantly his hand would smack the back of our head so  
hard we'd get a ringing in the ears. We were terrified- but we did our work  
to perfection! Complaints were not allowed then.  
I do not advocate this method.  
Ellery