Editorial

Distinguishing features

By chance - or probably not so, as I shall explain in a moment - the papers which appear
in this issue of ALT-J all deal, directly or indirectly, with investigations into how students
interact with computers, and how they might learn most effectively.

Scott Grabinger's article - the longest we have ever published, going way over the normal
limit of 5,000 words - is a comprehensive overview of REALs (Rich Environments for
Active Learning), a discussion of many aspects of educational theory, and a wide-ranging
review of the relevant literature. The referees for this article made almost identical
comments: it fits within the criteria set out in the guidelines for authors, it is worth
publishing for both its new perspectives and its review of current thinking, and it cannot
be cut down to the normal word limit without losing most of the value of what it says.
Grabinger's bibliography alone will, I hope, prove a valuable research resource in its own
right.

The piece by C. K. Ramaiah and colleagues presents the results of some interesting
experiments concerned with student skills in handling new technology; they thus
tangentially encompass learning theory. Oleg Pilipenko and Helena Komissarova do so
more directly in dealing with the ways in which learners interact with computers. Gervase
Phillips, who proposes that the distinction between the activities of History students and
programmers is artificial, touches on the same theme. Anne Groat and Tim Musson deal
with the fascinating question of learning styles. And the report by Naidu and colleagues,
on ways of improving instructional effectiveness with computer-mediated communica-
tion, naturally involves learning theory. Even in the book reviews in this issue, there is a
bias towards educational theories and how we can best put them into practice.

These facts are the result of two interlinked things. The first is that while theorizing about
education is hardly new, we are seeing more and more of it in the area of educational
technology - so much so that at ALT-C '95, I heard more than once the view expressed
that we ought to be getting on with the practice of education and leaving the theory to
those who live in the clouds. What a relief, I was told by one delegate, to come to a
conference where the vast majority of presentations were concerned with people's actual

2



ALT-J Volume 3 Number 2

experiences as practitioners, as opposed to airy-fairy, holier-than-thou pronouncements,
in jargon-ridden and often impenetrable language, about this or that obscure theory. I
quote: 'Let them actually produce something and try it out in the real world of the
tutorial room or computer lab; only then will they be worth listening to - and we might
then also understand what they're talking about.' And aimed straight at me by another
delegate: 'ALT-J should be publishing more about what ALT members have actually done,
and are actually doing'.

Well, the second thing is that referees for ALT-J, following the guidelines sent to them,
tend to reject papers which merely describe what people have done, are doing or are
intending to do, unless such papers say something really new - and, paradoxically,
genuine innovation is actually quite rare in our highly innovative field. Most purely
descriptive papers report the implementation of a piece of software, and perhaps some
student reactions to it, with no worthwhile analysis or independent judgement of it.
Students may say they like a piece of CAL software, but that is not the same as saying
that they have learned much from it, or have learned in some better way from it, or have
learned anything from it that they could not have learned by some other less expensive
means (you can buy a lot of books with the amount spent on developing some CD-
ROMs). Assessment of the value of CAL must be based on comparisons with
alternatives. In three years as Editor of this journal, I can count on the fingers of one
hand the number of papers I have received which make even an indirect attempt at such
comparisons using proper research methods (as opposed to 'feelings', or vague and
sometimes dubious anecdotal evidence). Of course, for certain aspects of CAL, it is hardly
necessary to prove the case. Distance learning is one example. Here, the balances between
the costs and the benefits of sending digital data down telephone lines instead of having
face-to-face contact are often fairly clear, and in any case (as with the Open University)
usually carefully assessed, before, during and after implementation. Furthermore, the
justification for using communications technology, whatever the cost, is often self-
evident; indeed (as at the Open University), such technology is sometimes indispensable.
But there are other areas where one wonders if the team of people who have written a
piece of CAL software have not started from the assumption that CAL is a Good Thing
(or, worse, have received funding and to Hell with whether it is or is not), never
questioning its value when set against its costs except for the occasional nod in the
direction of real-worldliness - costs not just of development, but also costs to an
institution persuaded to spend large amounts of money on equipment to deliver the
software, and an army of technicians to keep it all up and running. Let me emphasize that
I am not arguing the case against CAL. I am hardly likely to do that, given my belief in its
huge potential in so many aspects of university activity. I am arguing for a level of self-
assessment on the part of those involved in it. A paper which does no more than describe
what a development team has done, with no real analysis, nor showing any evidence of
rigorous methodology in its judgements (if they are there at all) does not advance our
cause. If we do not look critically at what we do, if we do not present incontrovertible
evidence of the benefits of CAL set against its cost (and, if necessary, be honest about its
failures), others who know little about the subject will eventually take a cool look at what
we are doing and conclude that we do not know either.

Thus, we have an issue of ALT-J which is biased towards learning theory, and which, I

3



Gabriel Jacobs Editorial

think, reflects the view that the use of educational technology is an intellectual challenge
as well as a practical means of teaching and learning. Rightly so. We are academics. We
should doubt all claims of success, all evidence which has not been subject to critical
scrutiny. Nearly all the papers which the referees rejected for this issue failed to take a
self-critical look at what they described (described rather than analysed). Where were the
control groups of students who had learned the same material delivered by some means
other than a computer (difficult, I know, but not impossible)? Where was the testing of a
theory? Where were the cost-benefit analyses? Where was the research methodology?
Where were the papers which discussed why students disliked an implementation? Do all
CAL implementations result in favourable student reaction?

So it is not by chance after all that this issue contains so much theory, even if much of it is
inextricably linked with practice. Theory inevitably involves intellectual activity, and
automatically attracts analysis, critical assessment, and detached evaluation of evidence.
The referees have reacted accordingly.

Gabriel Jacobs

4