Hypertext - A Blast from the Past

A professor in my department recommended an article to me by Dr. Andrew Dillon about hypertext. As you may guess by the topic, this is not a recent article; in fact, it was written in 1996. However, much of what Dillon talks about in this piece is very much aligned with the issues I've been wrestling with as I've been reading the virtual world literature, writing my qualifying exam paper, and beginning to outline a proposal for my dissertation research.

Dillon begins this piece by discussing the three sides of a triangle that scholars fall into when debating the integration of technology into the curriculum. First, according to Dillon, are the educationalists who prefer a technological approach to education and who advocate a virtual, networked, and non-linear learning environment. Next are those who hold a counter viewpoint and dismiss the educational potential of technology. And finally, there are those who view the technologies as a tool that can be a powerful learning aid when used correctly, and nothing more than plastic and electronic circuits when not. Dillon falls in the third category and wants to see evidence of the impact of technology on education.

Dillon highlights a definition of acceptable technology that was put forth by Shackel (1991). Based on Shackel's definition, a technology must satisfy specific criteria in terms of functionality, usability, and cost. Dillon also notes that the physical world can be an important shaper of theory. Further, he contends that just because a learning has replicated the instructor's representation of knowledge does not mean that a meaningful learning experience occurred. To me, this calls into question the value of Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development in that just because a learner can accomplish tasks with assistance from a more knowledgeable individual (e.g., instructor, more experienced peer) - ones that the learner could not complete alone - does not mean that this individual actually had a meaningful learning experience.

One of the myths Dillon points out is that that paper, as opposed to hypertext, is constricting for the learning. While on this surface this notion appears to have nothing to do with virtual worlds, Dillon's follow-up statement does: that it's not the technology that frees us from the constrictions of the physical world, but rather the methods. (Sounds a bit like Clark's 1983 position on technology, doesn't it?) Dillon continues by suggesting that as the arguments for technology move from advocating that these environments are liberating for the typical learner to one that claims that they are good for beginning learners, which may not be the case.

Much of the literature "pretends" that technology will solve all our current educational problems. This, as Dillon rightly notes, is aligned with technological determinism. Dillon concludes that educators need to view learning at the task level. In other words, how do learners complete tasks in the physical world. By moving to the task level, educators can conceptualize the technology as a supplement, and not a replacement, to the learning process.