inherent in building student models and facilitating human-like communications have been greatly underestimated by proponents of this approach .
In the face of the disappointing results of ITS , some experts suggest that "... the appropriate role for a computer is not that of a teacher / expert , but rather , that of a mind-extension ' cognitive tool '" ( Derry & Lajoie , 1993 , p . 5 ). Cognitive tools , as described in the next section of this report , are unintelligent tools , relying on the learner to provide the intelligence , not the computer . This means that planning , decision-making , and self-regulation are the responsibility of the learner , not the technology . Cognitive tools can serve as powerful catalysts for facilitating these higher order skills if they are used in ways that promote reflection , discussion , and collaborative problem-solving ( see Section Three of this report ).
Future Needs
Research and evaluation of the effectiveness of CBI and other applications of computers as tutors have been plagued by flaws that render much of the existing literature little more than pseudoscience ( Reeves , 1993 ). One reason for this deplorable state of affairs is that there has long been great disagreement about the purpose and value of educational research . For example , Nate Gage , a past president of the American Educational Research Association ( AERA ), has been a staunch defender of the notion that the goal of basic research in education is simply " more valid and more positive conclusions " ( Farley , 1982 , p . 12 ) whereas another past president of AERA , Robert Ebel , proclaimed :
.... the value of basic research in education is severely limited , and here is the reason . The process of education is not a natural phenomenon of the kind that has sometimes rewarded scientific investigation . It is not one of the givens in our universe . It is man-made , designed to serve our needs . It is not governed by any natural laws . It is not in need of research to find out how it works . It is in need of creative invention to make it work better . ( Farley , 1982 , p . 18 , Ebel ' s italics ).
Should educational research seek to establish immutable laws akin to those found in the harder sciences ? Or should educational researchers be focused on finding out how to improve education with different types of students in specific places at particular times of their development ? These questions reflect an on-going struggle between those who favor basic research and those who call for applied research . Despite the increased acceptance of qualitative alternatives to the experimental methods that dominated educational research in the past , there are signs that some powerful policy-makers are pushing for more classically empirical approaches . For example , the Panel of Educational Technology of the President ' s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology ( 1997 ) listed as one of its six major strategic recommendations that the government “ initiate a major program of experimental research .... to ensure both the efficacy and costeffectiveness of technology use within our nation ’ s schools ” ( p . 5 ). A wiser course would be to support both development research ( aimed at making CBI
15