The Pictures (and Sounds and . . .) Have It!* by William E. Boyd University of Arizona College of Law
* Copyright @ 1994 by William E. Boyd. All rights reserved. This is a working draft of a paper presented to the Third International Conference on Substantive Technology in the Law School, in Paris, France, July 11-13, 1994. It may not be used or distributed without my permission. Much of my research and also that of many others as reported here has been supported by grants from the National Center for Automated Information Retrieval (NCAIR). It is fair to say that instructional computing in the United States very likely would not have progressed as it has in recent years without the support of NCAIR. I wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance of Robert Pollak, a third year law student, and Donald West, an MIS student.
In an earlier presentation,(1) I surveyed trends in computer-assisted learning in the United States. To better understand those trends, I placed the efforts of a number of researchers on a continuum ranging from what I referred to as "conventional" computer-assisted instruction (CAI), which I viewed as consisting of materials that are intended to be primarily supplements to traditional classroom teaching to full blown electronic casebooks that support classroom experiences in which students become engaged in higher level discourse about legal doctrine and analytical skills much earlier in a course than is usually the case.(2) I concluded that effort with a brief look at work I had begun doing with multimedia and hypermedia. Here I wish to explore in greater detail the ideas sketched out there and to offer an update on my continuing efforts to use such emerging technology to enrich learning experiences in law schools.
As noted in the earlier work, for some time I have been concerned that we have not been sensitive enough to the fact that students learn in different ways(3) and that largely one-way textual presentations may not be the most effective means for assisting students generally to learn. I further believe that multimedia and hypermedia technology may provide a way of escaping the confines of conventional text-based education and enrich the learning experience associated with most current instructional computing by giving the learner more control and by addressing more of the learning modalities.(4) Moreover, at least some of the criticism of CAI to date focuses on what is perceived to be its relative inability to keep a learner's attention.(5) In my judgment, the emerging multimedia and hypermedia capabilities supported by the graphical user interface (GUI) can alleviate many of these concerns and, therefore, could be the technological advance that contributes the most to assure that instructional computing realizes its promise. Justifiable concerns have been expressed about the misuse of the newer technology. The last thing we need is to indulge the instinct of students to be passive participants by dressing up old technology with entertaining interfaces -- what some have referred to as "eye candy"(6) -- without using the technology to actually enrich the learning experience. And, developers must be vigilant to avoid this danger.
Especially with this concern in mind, I did not want simply to dress up traditional CAI with graphics and sounds. To do so would be to risk making the medium the message, or worse yet, muddling the message.(7) To avoid this risk, I chose to begin my work with an introspective look at what it is that we in legal education are trying to do and then identify ways that the technology might help us to do it better.(8) Of course, the question of what it is that we are trying to do in legal education has been the source of continuing debate.(9) It has often been asserted that our central objective must be to "teach law students to think as lawyers." Of course, there is much less agreement on the meaning of this glib assertion. It turns out that undertaking to give the phrase meaning is a useful way of analyzing what it is that we are trying to do. Thus, such an undertaking forces us to explain both what it is to think as a lawyer and how such thinking can be taught (or at least how we can facilitate learning to think as a lawyer). As it happens, I am still grappling with these questions.
Not surprisingly, I found myself immersed in the literature on what has come to be referred to as cognitive neuroscience.(10) I am still digesting the material and time and space constraints preclude more than a rough and ready accounting of my sojourn into that heady domain. However, I can report that what I have discovered so far has reinforced my belief that we can do better what we do with the assistance of advanced technology.
It is the case that there are ongoing, and deep controversies among investigators as to the details of the complex processes associated with learning.(11) However, there tend to be some rather more widely shared views as to the central features of the learning process and these views implicitly suggest ways of improving that process. Thus, learning is understood to involve perception, memory and ultimately thinking.(12) These complementary cognitive processes interact in as yet not well understood ways, but it seems reasonable to assume that we can enhance learning by assisting learners to better perceive the concepts and relationships that must be learned and by helping them to commit these concepts and relationships to memory in ways that facilitate their recall for use in thinking, or what for many of us is simply problem solving.(13) With respect to law, we must assist students to relate to the legal concepts, events and relationships that are the raw material of the law, and help them to organize that information in memory so that it may be recalled and employed when needed.(14) Unquestionably, language plays a central role in the cognitive processes associated with learning, but just how it performs that role is not at all clear.(15) It does seem that to engage in the perception, memory and recall processes that learning requires a learner must "speak the language," both internally and externally, and in the case of law that means being conversant in the often arcane and unfamiliar language of the law.
More directly pertinent to what the technology can do for us, perhaps, is evidence from cognitive science research that there are different modes of learning, meaning different ways that information may be perceived and stored in memory. These modes range from reading text to kinesthetic absorption(16) of information.(17) It further seems that there are preferred modalities of learning, that is, that the optimal mode of learning may differ for different people.(18) In particular, there appears to be agreement that some learners respond more positively to images than text, and vice versa.(19) The powerful connection between learning and memory has been known for ages.(20) Although there are differing theories as to how memory and learning actually interact,(21) most theorists appear to agree that narrative, even that verging on the fanciful, and repetition that results in rehearsal of the central concepts and their relationships, and other activities that involve "deep processing," greatly assist memory and ultimately learning.(22) That committing things to memory in such a way as to facilitate learning involves some degree of "chunking" and mapping or developing schema also is widely accepted.(23) And, of course, regular reinforcement and feedback is known to be essential.(24) Lastly, it seems that the end of learning is to be able to think in goal directed ways about problems encountered in the real world, that is, we learn for the purpose of being able to solve problems,(25) and the learning process may be enhanced to the extent that its focus is problems that have been solved and that are yet to be solved. The task of course is to take this eclectic assortment of postulates or precepts and put them to use.(26) This is what I have been attempting to do.
I began constructing an instructional computing system that would make use of multimedia and hypermedia technology to enrich the learning experience along the lines the postulates suggest. Early on I noted that many computer games, apart from their obvious entertainment value, something that should not be discounted,(27) have considerable educational value.(28) The educational value stems not only from their substantive content, but from the fact that they incorporate many of the learning theory postulates referred to. What has emerged is a not a little bit ambitious to design and implement a computer game of my own which I refer to as Sleuthing Article 9 (or, simply "Sleuthing").
Two games that have influenced the design of my own were Sherlock Holmes(29) and the 7th Guest.(30) The former was very suggestive in terms of the basic design. The latter gave me a useful perspective as to what was and was not doable given the constraints imposed by the resources available to me. Sleuthing is a game in the sense will thrust the learner into a game-like environment. There will be "mysteries" to solve. The mysteries are based upon the various tasks associated with creating and perfecting an Article 9 security interest. They arise in the context of problems posed by carefully defined fact situations. The learner is given access to a variety of resources ranging from his or her law school class notes to the statute itself (the UCC) and the cases interpreting that statute.(31)
The setting for the game and the various mysteries is what amounts to a virtual law office. The learner is a new associate. The learner's progress or lack there of is assessed by a senior associate or partner. There is a time limit on solving a mystery. It comes from the fact that the client needs an answer in a given amount of time. The time limit is in lieu of scoring as such. It forces the learner to be prudent about which resources to call upon because resort to some will simply waste time. The rendering of the virtual law office may well resemble that done with the virtual haunted house in the Seventh Guest. Both the Sherlock Holmes and the Seventh Guest games are rich in their use of sound and imagery. Sleuthing Article 9 will be also.
Sleuthing will, however, extend game technology that has been devoted primarily to entertainment. It does so because of its unique substantive content. More important is its self-conscious educational objective. It will enhance traditional computerized instruction by turning learning into a entertaining, high level game. That Sleuthing has an educational objective is easy to accept. That it will transform game playing into a useful learning experience will require proof. Verifying its learning value will require systematic empirical and comparative studies. But, of course, all of instructional computing could benefit from such studies.(32) And, there is reason to be optimistic that Sleuthing will be positively evaluated because it will have many of the attributes already identified as being of considerable significance to an effective learning experience.
One feature of Sleuthing that could contribute greatly to its potential for enhancing learning is its attempt to give the learner much more control over the path through the game. There certainly is value in a structured presentation. And, some basic structure is unavoidable. However, there is learning in self directed problem solving activity, even that which involves occasional failure. So long as the learner does not end up hopelessly lost both actually and figuratively, the overall return associated with a circuitous route may be greater than that through a linear, relatively direct route.(33) The trick of course is being able to design such a learner directed system.
Sleuthing will move towards learner direction by permitting the learner to jump into any mystery he or she wishes to try to solve, provided that the learner has sufficient foundation to tackle that particular mystery. For example, to handle the perfection mystery, the learner either must have "solved" the "attachment" mystery or be able to otherwise demonstrate a minimal level of competence in the subject to deal with perfection. The latter could involve a "primer" type quiz or exercise. I also want the learner to be able to get to a solution in about any way he or she wishes.
The ability to go to different resources at the learner's discretion an expanded degree of learner control. But, I wish to go much further. My idea is that the learner should be able to offer a solution at any point in the "path" through the game. Thus, a learner could choose to offer a complete solution immediately upon being assigned the problem to be solved. The program's evaluative entity (likely the senior associate), would then provide appropriate feedback. That feedback would indicate whether the proffered solution was correct or not. I expect that the solution offered usually will be partly correct and partly incorrect. As to that which was correct, the program would press for reasons that reflect understanding and not accept guesses. As to what was incorrect, the program would endeavor to lead the learner to other possible solutions by asking useful questions or making helpful comments, i.e., by giving "clues". Of course, a learner also should be able to ask questions, either of the senior associate or other resource characters. The process would be that of continually refining a solution by repeated iterations.(34)
Achieving the degree of evaluative and directive interaction that I have described obviously will press the technology to its limits and require great creativity in programming design. The absence of truly effective natural language processing will continue to be an obstacle.(35) But, I am hopeful. Adding to my confidence is the fact that the subject matter of the UCC is relatively closed ended or textured. There are more or less correct solutions to the various mysteries. The same cannot be said, for example, of many tasks associated with advising clients in bankruptcy cases where the answers often may be stated only in terms of reasonable alternatives.
It should be obvious that the learning system I have in mind is both technologically and pedagogically very ambitious. Naturally, the project is long term. It has yet to get very far beyond the storyboarding phase,(36) a phase that incidentally has been very informative. I and my support staff presently are working on various subprojects that eventually should fit into or influence the larger project. Some of these subprojects have independent value and are available separately.(37)
As noted, I have been moving the character-based version of my Article 9 exercise referred to above into a Windows environment using Asymetrix' Multimedia ToolBook™. Doing so has made the exercise available to Windows' users.(38) More pertinent to my larger project, it provided me with a largely completed and useful instructional program that may be used to test various theories about the use of multimedia and the GUI interface to enhance the learning experience. My early discovery that there was nothing obvious that could be done to improve the exercise by employing multimedia tools is what led me into the learning theory literature.
Other subprojects represent efforts to employ the learning theory postulates identified above on a selective and small scale basis. For example, I developed a set of flowcharts dealing with various aspects of Article 9. The charts are hypertext linked to each other and in combination provide a significant amount of meaningful information. However, the amount of information that I was able to get on one screen suggested the need for a different approach. This led to the creation of several color matrixes that capture the rules governing perfection of security interests in several types of collateral. Each row of each matrix when read across stated a set of conditions under which a security interest in the collateral would be perfected or not perfected. These matrix charts contain a large amount of information and with some effort a reader can learn a good deal about the conditions of perfection and nonperfection under Article 9. However, the charts are too busy for my taste (and probably for most users). Consequently, I tried still another approach. I began by making each cell of the matrix movable. The idea for this came from the taquin game. My plan was to allow a user to move the cells and the conditions stated therein into an area of the screen that would test for their presence and hence for the conditions of perfection. To my pleasant surprise, this design permitted me to considerably simplify the screen presentation without losing information. The product is called the Perfection exercise.
The Perfection exercise incorporates a number of the postulates gleaned from the learning theory literature. The information is chunked into essential pieces or conditions. The chunks are represented graphically and textually. The exercise uses color effectively in that when the pieces, which I call "tiles," are moved into the area of the screen that tests for the presence of the conditions necessary to perfection, they turn green. When they are moved to the area of the screen that tests for the nonexistence of a condition as it affects perfection, the tiles turn red. And, when a tile is moved into the area of the screen that amounts to a conclusion that the condition is irrelevant it turns blue.(39) The requirement that the learner/user move tiles around the screen draws upon the kinesthetic mode of learning.
The fact that the program informs the learner only whether the interest is or is not perfected is something of a problem. There should be more complete feedback so as to assist the learner in figuring out what he or she is doing wrong. As it happens, providing the feedback is not a trivial design problem. The number of permutations in the various sets of conditions is large and to be able to evaluate and respond correctly to each is a demanding programming task, but the effort is underway and progress is being made.(40)
The Perfection exercise has evolved into still another program the added features of which theoretically could improve learning still further. This later version is referred to as the Article 9 Game (not to be confused with the Article 9 exercise (The Ranch) described above). In this game the user's performance is scored. Each time the user places the tiles so as to correctly state the conditions of perfection, the user's score is positively incremented. Each incorrect arrangement results in a decrement to the score. The scoring introduces a largely innocuous competitive flavor to the exercise, as well as providing more explicit evaluative feedback. This scored exercise is used as a preliminary to being able to tackle the mysteries of the Sleuthing Article 9 game described above. Thus, a user must have attain a minimum score representing some minimal competency with respect to particular rules to be permitted to try to solve a mystery involving those rules.
A second embellishment involves the use of a notes pad.(41) Each time the learner tests for perfection, a record field appears. The learner is asked to state the conditions resulting in perfection or nonperfection in the form of an if-then proposition. At this point the learner will have been brought full circle from the mixed up collection of conditions to textual propositions stated as conditionals.(42) I would like the program to be able to evaluate the proposition stated (typed in) by the learner to provide additional feedback on a different learning behavior. Because the conditions stated in each tile may serve as key words or phrases, this may be less of a programming project than might first appear, but it is still nontrivial.
The notes feature has implications for evaluating the exercises themselves. Managing data resulting from learner behavior is central to attempts to ascertain the educational value of an exercise. Presently, the notes feature employs an internal record field, but my plan is to add the ability to "shell out" to more sophisticated data base software using Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) or Dynamic Link Libraries (DLL's).(43)
It will be apparent that both the more elaborate Sleuthing Game and to a lesser extent the embellished Ranch exercise and the Article 9 exercises implicate expert systems research. They all involve evaluative activity that assumes an "intelligent" program that can interact with the learner on substantive matters and assist the learner to move to preferred solutions.(44)
As already noted, an effective evaluative interaction poses significant language processing obstacles. Most recently, I have begun to investigate the potential of "neural net" programs for mitigating these difficulties. Neural nets (actually, neural network simulators) are computer programs that create a model of neurons and the connections between them and trains it to identify words and concepts.(46) All neural networks learn by association. Thus, a net may learn to identify a pumpkin by associating the inputs "large," "round," "orange," and "vegetable" with the output "pumpkin."(47) My view is that a net may be developed and trained to recognize input from learners and associate that input with output in the form of responses that point out "errors," reinforce "correct" answers, and otherwise guide the learner to the next level of analysis.
Until recently, the technology required computing power beyond the scope of most desktops. However, products suitable for use on desktops are beginning to appear. One of these, Brainmaker,(48) shows promise. If, as seems to be the case, the software permits developing a communication module that transcends the need to resort to key word searching and matching, and that such a module might itself become a dynamic system that has its own learning capabilities, a major impediment to the production of truly powerful learning systems will have been overcome.
However powerful the learning systems themselves it will become increasingly necessary to be attentive to evolving conceptions of the proper delivery system for instructional computing experiences. As computing and communications technologies continue to merge, the need to go to a certain physical location to engage in a particular learning experience will be less and less important.(49) My view is that we are moving inexorably to a model of distributed computing that transcends even local or regional boundaries. Dramatic advances have been made in the ability to engage in interactive use of various resources across the Internet.(50) The World Wide Web(51) and the introduction of "browsers"(52) that provide a friendly GUI interface have opened up exciting avenues of exploration. In the spirit of joining this inquiry, I have been designing a learning system that can be accessed and used over the Internet. This system, which is presently is called very simply the "Bankruptcy Learning System," and was originally implemented as a standalone ToolBook book, is programmed using the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). It is accessible at a University of Arizona Universal Resources Locator (URL) site and put into action using one of the graphics browsers describe above.(53)
That such network-based systems are the precursors to a new conception of the circumstances under which learning may and should take place is evidenced by the fact that the system was chosen for inclusion in a program on "New Learning Communities" sponsored by the Coalition for Networked Information and held recently in Phoenix, Arizona. A special focus of the program was the increasingly apparent need for collaborative activity in the development of such learning systems. The concern with collaborative effort provides a nice transition to the important subject of the development process.
I would be remiss if I did not offer a few observations on the process of developing useful instructional software. The advances in technology have opened up exciting new frontiers for instructional software developers, but many obstacles remain. One of these is the continued skepticism of many law faculty and administrators. Whether out of ignorance or insecurity, those who engage in instructional software development often get much less respect than they deserve from their colleagues.(54) More and better studies of the relative value of the various applications of the technology in legal education are needed.(55) Closely related, is the fact that the academic reward system must be revamped to recognize that instructional software development involves significant components of both teaching and research. Rewards from outside the law schools, such as the Educom award and the grants given by NCAIR, separately and through CALI, confer a degree of legitimacy on the activity, but it continues to be true that untenured faculty and faculty who place promotion and salary increases above their professional goals, are wisely reluctant to invest the time and energy it takes to develop effective educational software.
A third obstacle inheres in the technology itself. The rapid advances have brought with them a degree of instability that poses its own set of difficulties for developers.(56) Although academics do not feel the same pressure of deadlines as do practitioners, they nonetheless can be frustrated by attempts to corral the power of the complicated configuration of technology that multimedia requires. The services of the growing number of law school computing professionals have become virtually indispensable to accomplishing this end.(57) Lastly, has become apparent, if it was not always so, that development of truly effective instructional software is an interdisciplinary enterprise that calls for real teamwork.(58) It is not just technical expertise that is needed. We must reach out to the members of the emerging field of cognitive science(59) and attempt to apply their many and valuable insights on the questions of how learning occurs and how it can be improved.
Lurking beneath the collaborative development process are a range of issues that eventually will have to be addressed. Historically, research by academics has been a largely solitary enterprise. The hierarchical structure that characterizes most educational organizations has meant that librarians and, even moreso, computer professionals, have been seen as support persons. That such persons could, indeed to some extent, must be "partners" in a joint venture continues to be a novel idea. Difficult issues of who must actually retain final decisionmaking authority and responsibility must be resolved as the flattening out of traditional hierarchies takes place. Even where the collaboration is among "peers," meaning faculty from different disciplines, there will be issues of who is ultimately in control and how decisions are made. But, these problems aside, it is clear that collaboration is the key to truly creative and forward-looking development.
1. New Frontiers in Instructional Software, a paper presented to the 9th Annual British and Irish Legal Education Technology Association in April, 1994 at the University of Warwick in Coventry, England. A modified version of that paper appears in New Frontiers in Instructional Software, Law Technology Journal, vol. 3, p. 12 (1994).
2. Perhaps the most interesting efforts along these lines are those of Ron Staudt at Chicago-Kent. His work was the subject of the American Association of Law Schools Law and Computer Section program in January of 1993. See Boyd, Electronic Course Materials -- The Time Is Now, The CALI Report, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 1 (Winter 1993). See generally, Staudt, An Essay on Electronic Casebooks: My Pursuit of the Paperless Chase, 68 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 291 (1992); Staudt, Does the Grandmother Come with It? Teaching and Practicing Law in the Twenty-First Century, Case Western L. Rev. (1993?).
3. Or, perhaps more accurately, that the "key" learning modality differs among students. The work of the Neurolinguistic Programmer (NLP) group best reveals the role of different modalities in learning. See R. Bandler & J. Grinder, Reframing: Neuro-linguistic Programming and the Transformation of Meaning (Real People Press 1982); R. Bandler & J. Grinder, Frogs into Princes: Neurolinguistic Programming (Real People Press 1979). For a relatively recent attempt to put apply such research, see D. Lofland, Powerlearning (Longmeadow Press 1992).
4. The Computer Technology Center reports that "[P]eople retain only twenty percent of what they see and thirty percent of what they hear. But they remember fifty percent of what they see and hear, and as much as eighty percent of what they see, hear, and do simultaneously." Summarized in Hofstetter, Is Multimedia the Next Literacy?, Educators' TECH Exchange, p.7 (Winter 1994).
See generally, materials cited in note 3 supra.
5. It seems clear that learning requires getting and holding the learner's attention. See, e.g., J. Anderson, Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications 52-58 (1990). Salomon & Globerson, Skill May Not Be Enough: The Role of Mindfulness in Learning and Transfer, 11 Int'l J. Educ. Res. 623 (1987) (Arguing that the differences between what learners are capable of learning and what they do learn may be explained by the mid-level construct of "mindfulness" which reflects voluntariness and connects motivation, cognition and learning). It is also the case that CAI carries with it the risk of losing a learner's attention or even being downright boring. See, e.g., Young, Justification and Criticism of Legal CAL, 2 Law Tech. J. 20, 21-22 (1992). But, it should not be forgotten that conventional teaching methods are not free of this risk. See, e.g., Rains, Boring, The Law Teacher p. 1 (Institute for Law Teaching Gonzaga University Fall 1993).
6. See the e-mail exchange on the TLTP-Law listserv dated October 12, 1993 (email@example.com).
7. Several studies question the effectiveness of multimedia in learning materials. A number of these studies are summarized in an e-mail message from Max Young to me dated March 18, 1994 and which I have on file in my office. There is a very real concern in connection with computerized instruction that the screen will become cluttered to the point of obscuring any value that might otherwise be associated with the use of text enhancements. See E. Tufte, Envisioning Information 51, 53, 62 (Graphics Press 1990). More substantively, there is an oft-expressed concern that "bells and whistles" produce a "gee-whiz" effect that has a transient rather than a lasting positive impact on learning. See, e.g., Dixon & Blin, Issues in Instructional Design for CAL: Problems and Possible Solutions, in Learning Technology in the European Communities 725-733 (S. Cerri & J Whiting, eds. 1992). But there also is evidence that learning is improved by materials that contain graphics and animation, see Alessandri & Rigney, Pictorial Practice and Review Strategies in Science Learning, J. Res. Science Teaching 465-474 ( 1981), and that the positive impact is attributable to more than the novelty effect. Teich, How Effective is Computer-Assisted Instruction? An Evaluation for Legal Educators, 41 J. Legal Educ. 489, 493-94 (1991). See also, Zachmann, Education: The Final Frontier, PC Magazine, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 97 (1991).
8. It has become clear to most of us in this field that ne of the great benefits of using the technology is that it forces us to be much more precise about our objectives.
9. The debate recently intensified as a result of the issuance of an American Bar Association Task Force report insisting that law schools are not doing enough to equip law graduates with law practice skills. The McCrate Report.
10. See, e.g., S. Kosslyn, Wet Mind/Dry Mind -- The New Cognitive Neuroscience (Free Press 1992). Naturally, I am not the first to make the journey into learning theory for guidance. See, e.g., Staudt, supra note 2, at ???.
11. See A. Newell, Unified Theories of Cognition 1-41 (Harvard University Press 1990). See also, Anderson, supra note 5; H. Gleitman, Psychology ch. 8 (1991).
12. See materials cited supra note 11.
13. See J. Anderson, supra note 5, ch. 8 (Problem Solving) and ch. 9 (Development of Expertise); Gleitman, supra note 11, ch. 8 (Thinking); Newell, supra note 11, ch. 4 (Symbolic Processing for Intelligence). For an excellent discussion of problem solving activity by lawyers and the potential role of artificial intelligence and expert systems, see H. Perritt, How to Practice Law with Computers ch. 9 (Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning) (1992).
14. As to the latter, it is generally assumed that learning involves arranging knowledge schematically and that it is the ability to make efficient use of these schema that distinguishes the expert from the amateur. See Anderson, supra note 5, at ch. 9 (Development of Expertise).
15. See Gleitman, supra note 11, at ch. 9 (Exploring the development of language skills and noting the important function of grammar).
16. "Kinesthetic" refers to activity of learners, both internal and external, such as drawing pictures, pressing keys or clicking a mouse, and forming images. See materials cited in note 3 supra. See also, Levie & Lentz, Effects of Text Illustrations: A Review of Research, Educational Communications and Tech. Journal, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 195-232 (1982) (Summarizing research as to the effects of various illustrations on learning text, including that involving asking subjects to draw pictures and form mental images).
17. See materials cited notes 3 & 16 supra. See also, Gleitman, supra note 11, at 130-35 (Discussing instrumental conditioning).
18. See materials cited note 3 supra. See also, C. West, J. Farmer, P. Wolff, Instructional Design Implications from Cognitive Science 14-15, 236-37 (Prentiss Hall 1991)[Hereinafter Instructional Design].
19. See, e.g., Levie & Lentz, supra note 16. The leading contemporary investigator of the role of images in cognitive behavior may well be Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University. See Kosslyn, supra note 10; S. Kosslyn, Ghosts in the Minds Machine (Norton & Co. 1983); S. Kosslyn, Images and the Mind (Harvard University Press 1980).
20. See materials cited note 3 supra. See also, Kosslyn, supra note 10, at 372. As to the nature of memory itself, see E. Bolles, Remembering and Forgetting -- Inquiries into the Nature of Memory (Walker and Company 1988); G. Johnson, In the Palaces of Memory -- How We Build the Worlds Inside Our Heads (Alfred A. Knopf 1991); J. Spence, The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci (Viking Penquin, Inc. 1984). Evidence of the effect of preexisting "knowledge" impacts upon perception and learning is often associated with the work of Piaget, but the more specific legacy may be the work of Bartlett ("the war of the ghosts"). See, e.g., Instructional Design, supra note 18, at 5.
21. See materials cited notes 5 and 10 supra. For a fascinating treatment of the psychological and physiological dimensions of learning, see S. Kosslyn, Wet Mind/Dry Mind (Free Press 1992).
22. See materials cited note 5 supra.
23. See Anderson, supra note 5, at 133-44; Gleitman, supra note 11, at 294-98; Newell, supra note 11, at 185-93. See also, Instructional Design, supra note 18, at 7-14.
24. See Anderson, supra note 5, at 150-76; Newell, supra note 11, at 435.
25. See Anderson, supra note 5, at 256-86; Gleitman, supra note 11, at 293-314; Newell, supra note 11, at 39-40, 98-102, 164-70. See also, Instructional Design, supra note 18, at 252-53.
26. For a very useful guide to using precepts derived from learning theory in software design, see Instructional Design, supra note 19.
27. See Zachmann, supra note 7.
28. Among the better known are S. Meier's, Civilization (MicroProse) and SimCity 2000 (Maxis). As to the value of games generally, see, e.g., R. Lipton, The Multimedia Toolkit 54, 65-88 Random House Electronic Publishing 1992).
29. Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective (ICOM Simulations, Inc.).
30. The 7th Guest (Virgin Games & Trilobyte).
31. The resemblance to the Sherlock Holmes game structure will be apparent to those familiar with that game.
32. To date such studies as there are have been done mostly outside legal education. See, Teich, supra note 7, at 489-501. And, although such evidence as does exist tends to be favorable, see, e.g., Teich, supra and Young, supra note 5, concerns about the reliability of the evidence continue to be expressed. See, e.g., Allen & Robinson, The Future of Computer-Assisted Learning in Law, J.L. & Information Science 275, 277-79 (1992); Korn, Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction: Some Reservations, J. Legal Educ. 33, 473 (1983), as reported in Young, supra note 5.
33. See, e.g., Kibby & Mayes, The Learner's View of Hypermedia, in Learning Technology in the European Communities 53, 53-56 (S. Cerri & J. Whiting, eds. 1992).
34. Insofar as the Sleuthing game guides a learner to a solution by evaluating learner responses, making suggestions and answering questions, the system takes on a distinctive expert system quality. But, to the extent that it allows the learner to "roam" and to devise solutions by following paths of his or her own choosing it the system is quite different.
35. The "natural language" barrier has been with us from the beginning, see, e.g., Boyd, Law in Computers and Computers in Law: A Lawyer's View of the State of the Art, 14 Ariz. L. Rev. 267, ??? (1972), and is not likely to be entirely overcome any time soon. Allen & Robinson, The Future of Computer Assisted Learning in Law, 3 J.L. & Information Science 275, 283-84 (1992). .
36. Storyboarding is a concept borrowed from film and animation production. It conveys the important message that multimedia documents have a time dimension and tell a story across time. Compare to linear documents, multimedia documents have a narrative dimension as well. They involve a performance in which the learner becomes a central actor. Storyboarding is
the process of laying out the overall design of the presentation or game. It can be done with greater or lesser polish. The doing is imperative to getting a sense of what the learner should and will experience. See R. Lipton, The Multimedia Toolkit 322-23 (Random House Electronic Publications 1992). For a more scientifically detailed treatment of storyboarding, see S. scientifically, Rapid Application Prototyping: The Storyboarding Approach to User Requirements Analysis (QED 1992).
37. They are available for "hands on" examination in a ToolBook book called "Pictures of Perfection."
38. The Windows version of the Ranch program has an authoring utility that is available in a pulldown menu.
39. As a matter of fact the program uses the color property to test for the existence or nonexistence of a condition.
40. What is called for has sometimes been referred to as "brute force" programming, meaning the programmer must by trial and error attempt to anticipate every possible user response and then refine the program each time a new unanticipated instance is encountered.
41. This is a feature introduced originally in the Ranch exercise.
42. The value of the if/then structure in dealing with legal propositions has been the special interest of Layman Allen of the University of Michigan for many years. He has sought to "normalize" statutes and thereby eliminate or significantly reduce the syntactic ambiguity that characterizes many statutes. Most recently, Allen has been incorporating his normalizing techniques into software aimed at improving legal writing. Allen & Saxon, One Use of Computerized Instructional Gaming in Legal Education: To Better Understand the Rich Logical Structure of Legal Rules and Improve Legal Writing, 18 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 383 (1985).
43. For a useful explanation of these tools and how they differ that is now a bit dated, see J. Pierce, Toolbook Companion (Microsoft Press 1990).
44. Use of expert systems, systems that work in a relatively limited legal domain, could have an earlier payoff for legal education than the more ambitious full blown AI research from which it springs. Over the years, I have developed a program for drafting security agreements under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, See Boyd & Saxon, The A-9: A Program for Drafting Security Agreements Under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 1981 A.B.F. Res. J. 637 )Reprinted in Corporate Counsel's Annual (1982))and a system for assisting attorneys to make the important decision of whether to put an individual client into a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. See Boyd, Choosing Between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy: A Computer-Based Model of the Decision-Making Process, in Legal Information and Intelligent Systems (West Publishing Co. 1985).(45)
45. See Boyd, Choosing Between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy: A Computer-Based Model of the Decision-Making Process, in Legal Information and Intelligent Systems (West Publishing Co. 1985).
46. See Jeanette Lawrence, Introduction to Neural Networks 5-7 (California Scientific Press 1992).
47. Id. at 6.
48. Brainmaker Pro is a Windows product from California Scientific Software.
49. Long distance learning is the familiar current example of such a changed delivery system. But, efforts to date only give us a glimpse of a completely different model of education where students nationally and even globally connect to sites that provide the best of competing approaches to basic or core learning experiences that enable the students to engage in higher level learning where teachers become mentors and partners.
50. Which is not to say that there is not much yet to be done, including developing a coherent plan for creating the necessary technological infrastructure. See Graves, Toward a National Learning Infrastructure, The Educom Review, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 32 (March/April 1994).
51. The World Wide Web is one of a number of tools that are aimed at giving users of the Internet meaningful access to the huge amounts of information located at Internet sites located around the world. For one of many helpful articles on the Internet tools, see Valauskas, One-Stop Internet Shopping: NCSA Mosaic On the Internet, Online p. 99 (Sept. 1993). See generally, D. Dern, The Internet Guide for New Users (McGraw-Hill 1994).
52. Browsers are special interface software packages that make use of the graphical user interface (GUI). Mosaic, which was developed by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois Champagne-Urbana, is perhaps the most well-known browser. See Valauskas, One-Stop Internet Shopping: NCSA Mosaic On the Internet, Online p. 99 (Sept. 1993). Another browser is Cello developed by Tom Bruce at Cornell Law School and available from the Cornell web site called the Legal Information Institute. Today Netscape, a commercial browser available to academics without charge, is rapidly becoming the browser of choice.
53. These browsers are discussed in note 51 supra.
54. This is a now familiar lament. See, e.g., Boyd, Electronic Course Materials -- The Time Is Now, The CALI Report, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 1 (Winter 1993).
55. But see, Teich, supra note 7. There is a continuing problem of defining what we mean by CAI. Earlier I argued that we should think in terms of a more inclusive category of instructional computing materials.
56. Boyd & Woods, Review of H. Perritt, How to Practice Law with Computers (2nd ed. PLI 1992), in 2 Int'l J.L. & Tech. ??? (1994).
57. See Boyd, Computing in Legal Education -- Getting from Here to There, in proceedings of the Conference for Law School Computing Professionals, 89 (Chicago-Kent Law School June 1993).
58. The growing importance of collaborative effort in instructional computing was recently recognized by the Coalition for Networked Information subcommittee of Educom when it sent out a call for descriptions of team-based projects focusing on imaginative uses of the Internet in instruction.
59. See text and notes, supra at notes 52-67.