Here is a 1913 statement by the technology expert of his
day, Mr. Thomas Alva Edison, tell me if the claim sound familiar:
"Books will soon be obsolete in the schools." 
This was Mr. Edison's claim that the new I.T. marvel, the
motion picture, would bring about a new era in public education.
The death of the book and its replacement by this new I.T. promised
to give students a direct experience of the world, unmediated by
the limitations of the printed page that had held their minds hostage
Nine years later, in 1922, Mr. Edison remarks again on the
impending changes. He says,
"I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize
our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant
largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks." 
By the 1920s the motion picture industry had begun to bring
about fundamental change in the entertainment industry ,
but the revolution in education promised from the promoters of motion
pictures would never come.
U.S. National Education Association surveys done in 1946
and 1951 of motion picture use in urban school districts clearly
support this observation. The number of teachers who "never" or
only "occasionally" used the technology remained remarkably consistent
between these two surveys. In 1946 68% of elementary, 63% of junior
high school and 85% of senior high school fell into these user groups.
A survey conducted in 1954 found 58% of elementary and 77% of secondary
teachers either never or occasionally used them. (For comparative
purposes if you average the 1946 secondary score you get 74%.) 
Larry Cuban in his 1986 book, Teachers and Machines: The
Classroom use of technology since 1920, cites four reasons for
the low effectiveness of film in the classroom:
In other words, the four primary factors limiting adoption or
use are as follows: 1) technical skills needed to employing the technology;
2) the cost of the technology; 3) accessibility to the technology
as needed; and, 4) appropriate educational/curriculum content .
These are recurring themes with each of the "revolutionary" educational
- Teacher lack of skill in using the equipment and films;
- Costs of the films, equipment and maintenance;
- Inaccessibility of the equipment when it is needed;
- Finding and fitting the right film to the class. 
About the time Edison was making his 1922 prediction, the
US Department of Commerce was beginning to license educational and
commercial radio stations. The first known classroom use is in New
York City in 1923 . Ten
years later, Benjamin Darrow, an early enthusiast of radio in education
made the statement in 1932 that,
"[t]he central and dominant aim of education by radio is to
bring the world to the classroom, to make universally available
the services of the best teachers, the inspiration of the greatest
leaders, ... and unfolding world events which through radio may
come as a vibrant and challenging textbook of the air." 
By the 1940s one study of 1900 California schools shows 66%
with radio sets in the classroom .
However, the same survey found that regular use by 1 or more teachers
per school was 8% at the elementary level and 5% at the secondary
level. The same issues of end user technical skills, cost, accessibility
and content limited its use as an instructional media .
I am (just) old enough that one of my earliest memories of
public school is sitting cross-legged on the floor in the hallway
staring intently at a large colour television set. I, along with
the rest of my grade one class (and the rest of the population of
the school for that matter) were watching one of the NASA space
launches of the early 1960s .
Or I remember being allowed to stay up past my bedtime to see Kenneth
Clarke discussing the history of art in his 13 part TV series CIVILISATION
 aired in 1970 or
Jacob Bronowski's, The Ascent of Man in 1973 .
On the surface, my personal recollections seem to support
the claims of a 1961 study by the Ford Foundation for the Advancement
"Students in today's classrooms can be eyewitnesses to history
in the making... They can see and hear the outstanding scholars
of our age. They can have access to the great museums of art,
history and nature. A whole treasure-trove of new and stimulating
experiences that were beyond the reach of yesterday's students
can be brought into the classrooms for today's students." 
In fact, what I do remember is a general feeling of excitement
and wonder, as much related to the departure from our usual school
schedule, as the blast off itself. What I have no recall of is any
discussion (beyond the initial, "isn't technology neat!") relating
the image on the screen to activities in my classroom. While this
is hardly a scientific observation about the classroom use of TV,
I don't think my experience is unique. (The only other time I can
remember a TV in my class was in 1972 for the Canada-Russia hockey
While there were experiments in the 1930s and 1940s with both broadcast
and closed circuit educational TV programming, it wasn't until 1953
that the Federal Communication Commission awarded broadcast licenses
for the first 242 educational stations in the U.S. 
It took another 10 years for first the Ford Foundation, then the
US Office of Education to put any significant funding into educational
TV . After millions of
dollars invested, the level of classroom use of TV was no better
than that of motion pictures or radio.
The discussions of the factors governing (non-) adoption
of TV as an educational tool in the 1960s are remarkably similar
to those for the earlier (and later) I.T.s: cost to implement and
maintain; flexibility of the media; comprehension and control of
the media by the teacher; student response; support for, instead
of replacement of, current practice; fad and pressure .
Clifford Stoll, author of Silicon Snake Oil, raises
an interesting question regarding the effectiveness of "educational
television". He asks, "'Sesame Street,' widely acclaimed as an outstanding
program for children, has been around for twenty years. Indeed,
its idea of making learning relevant at all was as widely promoted
in the seventies as the Internet is today. So where's the demographic
wave of creative and brilliant students now entering college?" 
Put it another way, we have run this experiment in educational television
on our children for over 20 years, has anyone stopped to consider
An interesting bridge between traditional print materials,
TV and computers (a truly multimedia experience) in "The Voyage
of the Mimi" and its sequel "The Second Voyage of the Mimi".
The original project was funded with a $3.65 million dollar grant
and co-produced by the U.S. Department of Education, the Banks Street
College of Education, the Public Broadcasting Corporation and the
publishers Holt, Rinehart and Winston. In his book, Amusing Ourselves
to Death, New York University professor and media critic Neil
Postman presents a troubling analysis of this type of "educational"
experiment. Postman concludes his discussion with the following
assertion, "I would suggest that "The Voyage of the Mimi" was conceived
by someone's asking the question, what is television good for?,
not, what is education good for?" 
What Postman and Stoll are criticising is the influence entertainment
is having on education. This perceived need to make learning 'fun'
expresses itself by the creators of educational media as infotainment
or edutainment. This trend has already had a perceptible impact
on museum exhibitions and programming.
Museums and the Web
In 1992 the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) releases
WWW  and in the same
year one of the first on-line exhibits, "Revelations from the Russian
Archives", a selection of materials from the Russian Archives displayed
at the Library of Congress .
The information was delivered as GIF and ASCII files from an anonymous
ftp server this experiment demonstrates some of the potential for
delivering heritage information over the Internet. As ground breaking
as this initiative was we should remember it is employing technology
nearly 20 years old at the time .
In 1994 the US National Center for Supercomputing Applications
(NCSA) in the U.S. releases Mosaic.
The Library of Congress followed up the Russian archives exhibit
in 1993 with "Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library & Renaissance
Culture", an exhibit
based on material from the Vatican Library. In a 1993 review of
the exhibit David Bearman observed the limitations of this new media.
He makes the following observation after visiting the exhibit with
a Mosaic browser running on a SPARC workstation running at the University
of Pittsburgh's School of Library and Information Science:
"By opening several windows, the user can read the text, view
the object and correlate both with the master list of references
but the texts average only a few hundred words per image and bring
JPEG images across the network and then mapping them to my 8 bit
screen, requires several minutes each. This precludes "browsing"
or even perceiving the online format as an exhibit; the result
is that the database is suitable only for research and only by
someone who has already studied the published catalog and perhaps
printed out the master list for local study."
In short, Bearman cites the low resolution of the images,
the slow speed for downloading, the limited amount of supporting
text, and I would add the high cost of the hardware and technical
support, were major detracting factors from the appropriateness
of the technology for its purpose.
These criticisms notwithstanding, I feel the most important
implication comes from the final sentence. If "the database is suitable
only for research" and by someone who has printed out the master
list and studies the published catalogue, why create the Web site
in the first place? Could not the same aims be served by reducing
the cost and increasing the distribution of the paper catalogue?
Why the Technology Failed to Deliver the Promised Goods
in the Past
Why has I.T. historically failed to deliver the promised
goods in terms of improvement of education? From the classroom perspective
I think we can see a historical pattern emerging. It begins with
enthusiastic early adoption of the technology usually backed up
with grandiose claims from its proponents. This revolution gets
buoyed up politically with infusions of research grants. This in
turn leads to over inflated expectations on the part of users, under
critical examination of results by developers, and structural resistance
within organizations. Finally obscurity for the vector of the "educational
revolution" as we rampage towards the next technological wonder.
If you think this interpretation is extreme, look what is happening
to the funding for public television as governments pour hundreds
of millions of dollars into the "information highway".
Many might say that my analysis so far is overly cynical
and there have been many successes. Unfortunately this unbridled
optimism may tend to obscure the actual situation. In publicizing
the successful projects and ignoring the failures we skew the truth
about our use of I.T. We should bear in mind that 31% of all I.T
projects are cancelled before completion, and of those remaining
52% run over budget .
These facts alone should be enough to fire up the warning rockets.
Before proceeding I would like to raise three general points
to consider as possible underlying causes for the historical failures.
The first important point is the very fact that all the enthusiastic
statements about the impact of I.T. were predictions. And the simple
truth of it is we are not very good at predicting the future, particularly
when we are dealing with complex phenomena .
My second point follow on from this. These predictions were based
on a belief in technology, rather than any real evidence
for either its effectiveness or its appropriateness as a learning
tool. This is an important theme in examining any technology's claim
to be better than what it wants to replace, and something we will
return to later in this essay. The final point I wish to raise from
examining these two statements is this, "What is the relationship
of the speaker to the technology being touted?" Or as William Y.
Arms, Vice-President for Computing Services at Carnegie Mellon University
expressed it "I am an enthusiast about electronic information, and
enthusiasts must be treated with caution."
Politics, Education and Business: Alternative Perspectives
I think that what we have been observing here is a complex
interplay between politicians, educators and the business community.
Each brings their own concerns and agendas to the table. I think
we would all agree the heritage community as a whole has not been
entirely successful in impacting the concerns or agendas of these
much more powerful and organized segments of society.
One of the possible reasons for the failures we have to date
is how these technologies were brought to bear on the problem. The
approach to deployment that stresses top-down management and development
might be part of the problem.
There are two important issues that come into play when systems
are imposed from above. First, you get a certain level of user resistance
to the changes. This is particularly true when the users feel they
have been allowed little input into the key decisions about the
system. Second, the top-down design and implementation model tends
to miss important factors unless efforts are made to these systemic
defects with a bottom-up check to the model. This is a common approach
in relational system design and data modeling. We see both these
in the historic data expressed as teacher resistance to the using
the technology and the complaint that there is little appropriate
content to use in the classroom.
I think it cannot be coincidental that the enormous interest
in the Web occurred following the 1992 US presidential election.
Vice-President Al Gore has been the high-level champion of this
technology beginning in his days in the Senate .
Richard Joseph's 1997 analysis of the political mythology of the
"Information Superhighway" documents how US initiatives had immediate
and far-reaching repercussions worldwide. He argues that concepts
like this spread so quickly and uncritically is based on the tendency
to use what are seen as successful implementations as models. Whether
or not the model is appropriate to local circumstances. From an
Australian perspective he examines defines, high technology, deregulation
and the information superhighway as models taken from the US and
UK, and there application to local circumstances .
While Joseph is examining this phenomenon at the level of
national governments, this issue of model adoption is clearly applicable
to museums and the Web. Models of systems developed for large, well-funded
museums and organizations may not be applicable to smaller, not
so well funded institutions. However, these are the systems held
out as examples of what is possible for us to emulate. Too often
we end up developing a Web site we can not support when the grant
runs out because we did not look critically enough at the underlying
model we were being offered.
Vartan Gregorian noted that "[i]n an era of fixed resources,
this means reallocating existing resources. Growth can only be by
substitution, not addition." 
In Canada we have seen a decade of cuts at all levels of government
to museum operating budgets. Private sector funding has not made
up for these shortfalls and we have all been downsized to a greater
or lesser extent. In this environment we have seen a great deal
of spending in the area of information technology in museums.
In Canada, the SchoolNet program of Industry Canada 
has connected 70% of all Canadian schools to the Internet. By the
end of 1998 their goal is to have all schools will be connected.
Since there are 12,402 elementary and 3,468 secondary schools in
Canada  this is a truly
impressive accomplishment. Not to mention an enormous capital and
operating cost. Part of the program, the SchoolNet Digital Collection,
is designed to assist museums, libraries and archives to place relevant
Canadian content onto the Web. Each project receives a grant of
$25,000 to pay unemployed youth to digitise collections. The project
has been very successful in getting material on-line. However, there
are no additional funds for the museums to continue to develop their
new site once the grant is gone and I have seen no follow up evaluation
regarding the use or usefulness of the content. I have to wonder
aloud if the museum was offered a $25,000 grant to spend anyway
it choose would this be number one on its priority list? Or if we
could direct the money would it be better spent on bringing up the
quality of the institution's inventory or catalogue records?
There has been a certain mythology associated with hypermedia
applications in relation to their use as learning tools. Andrew
Dillon presents arguments regarding what he considers the four widely
held myths regarding hypermedia: 1) Associative linking
of information is natural in that it mimics the workings of the
human mind; 2)
Paper is a linear and therefore a constraining medium; 3) Rapid
access to a large manipulatible mass of information will lead to
better use and learning; 4) Future technologies will solve all current
problems . If Dillon
is correct (and I believe he is) then the underlying assumptions
we have about the Web as a superior learning medium are wrong. Let's
briefly consider each of these in turn.
Dillon states the assumption that associative linking really
models the human mind is largely unsupported by cognitive studies.
The work of Roger Penrose, Daniel Dennett and others seem to support
this conclusion .
Novels, motion pictures, and lesson plans all have a beginning,
middle and an end. The most effective teaching (regardless of media
or transmission method) has clearly articulated learning goals and
a methodology for presenting these to the student. I think one of
the great failures of the Web as a learning media is its lack of
structure. The ability for the student to get distracted from the
lesson at hand and follow whatever might grab their attention probably
does as much to keep it from being utilized as any other reason.
A 1995 US Department of Education report reports that 50%
of all schools had Internet access, but only 2% of teachers and
3% of students making use of on-line resources. I do not find these
figures interesting from a historical perspective of I.T. adoption
in the classroom. They lend support for Dillon's third myth that
a large mass of on-line data will improve learning. Thomas Lowderbaugh
developing curriculum support material for the Smithsonian Institution's
Ocean Planet exhibit in 1995 concludes that the correlation between
the lack of use and the lack of teacher access is in fact a causal
relationship. Teachers can't get access so they don't the materials
. This explanation might
be too simple. Kevin Donovan's does not support this causal relationship.
He states that "[s]imply providing the public with access to data
is insufficient to satisfy the goal of public education." What he
is calling for is better access to value-added information not just
a few online exhibitions or our collection catalogues .
I think we can all agree that the educational market is highly segmented.
Detailed studies on learning styles and client needs will allow
us to better understand the needs of each of these groups .
Last year at this conference Kevin Donovan of Willoughby
Associates raised the issue of I.T. in museums when he wrote,
"that museums are making this investment [in automation technology]
is all the more surprising given the unsatisfactory rates of return
(ROI) that the past twenty years of pouring money and staff into
museum automation projects has yielded, with the exception of
gains in two areas: office automation and audit responsibilities
This echoes the 1990 findings of a study by P. Weill from
an examination of commercial applications where gains were found
in application of transactional systems (for example data processing),
but were absent in either strategic systems (e.g. sales support)
or informational investments (e.g. email infrastructure) .
Those studying it have christened this problem the "Productivity
Paradox", and it is one of the most interesting conundrums about
the I.T. revolution. The statement "we see computers everywhere
but not in the productivity statistics" attributed to Nobel Prize
economist Robert Solow 
succinctly expresses our dilemma we face in trying to quantify the
relationship between our spending on I.T. and its supposed improvements
in the operation of our businesses. There has been a growing body
of analysis since the mid-1980s that the loss of productivity seen,
particularly in the service sector, may be attributed to the wide
spread deployment of I.T.. Steven Roach, an economist with Morgan
Stanley provided the first econometric underpinnings for the conclusion
that information worker has not increased for more than 20 years
despite (or perhaps because) of increasing amounts of I.T. being
deployed . Paul Strassmann
, Erik Brynjolfsson 
and Thomas Landauer 
all provide major analyses supporting this conclusion. However,
a later study by Brynjolfsson and Hitt of firm-level productivity
seems to run counter to this trend .
This has important implications for I.T. in museums. Collectively
we have had nearly 40 years experience and some measure of success
with data processing applications, usually collections management
systems. In the last decade we increasing amounts of I.T. is being
deployed in all areas of the museum. Usually with all fingers pointing
to how it has increased the efficiency of collection management
functions. If these economic studies are to be believed much of
this money could have been better spent.
Are We Doing Our Job Better? Areas for Additional Inquiry
I have spent the last 4800 words presenting a picture of
information technology misunderstood and misapplied. With the huge
sums of money being spent on creating a Web presence for museums
I guess I expected more. I don't think we are living up to our own
hype, and we actually stand in peril of believing the stuff we put
in our grant applications. I think at present the weight of evidence
stands against us.
Even through this weight of cynicism and fear I remain hopeful.
We have been presented with a wonderful tool for furthering the
mission of museums. We need to remember, however, it is only one
tool and might not always be the best tool for the job at hand.
We need to stand back and look at it for what the Web really is
today, not for the magical potential it might possess. It is a tool
unlike anything we have been handed before. We need to consider
carefully how we deploy it, and at what cost.
We need real costs and better case studies before can we
even begin to answer the questions of how to use the Web. We need
to measure both our successes and more importantly our failures.
We need solid econometrics to replace decisions made on beliefs.
There are learning curve issues internal (staff) and external
(user) to our institutions regarding the technology adoption cycle
for the Web. We need to understand the end user better - appreciating
the significant differences in primary, secondary, post-secondary
and continuing education markets. Most of all we need to avoid,
as Postman would say, presenting entertainment as education. The
worst side effect of the Web could be the continued "dumbing down"
of inherently difficult concepts to meet the needs of the "edu-tainment"
Finally we need to remember why museums are museums - our
collections. I know that every major museum now has to be equipped
with a bookstore, gift shop, bar, restaurant, and live Sunday afternoon
jazz. And that these are important for "reaching out to the community",
"improving the visitor experience", and generating revenue. But,
people come to our museums see our stuff, and hear what our experts
can tell them about the objects. Nothing can replace the child's
(or adult's for that matter) experience of the real thing. And all
the "virtual museums" on the Web are not going to change that.
 From an interview with
Joesph Weizenbaum, Ph.D., Professor of Computer Science, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, in "Computers and Education", (June 1984)
BYTE 9(6), p.225
 There have been many papers
discussing this recently. See from example, Todd Oppenheimer, "The
Computer Delusion", The Atlantic Monthly (July 1997), [http://www.the
atlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm]; Jeremy Schlosberg,
"Why Multimedia Still Sucks", Salon21, [http://www.salonmagazine.com/march97/21st/articleb.html];
W. Wayt Gibbs, "Taking Computers to Task", Scientific American (July
 "A museum is defined in
Article 2 para. 1 of the Statutes of the International Council of
Museums as "a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service
of society and of its development, and open to the public which
acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for
purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of
people and their environment."" A full definition can be found at
ICOM's web site at [http://www.icom.org/ethics]
 I take this object-centric
position because I believe museums are fundamentally about objects
and collections. See Richard Gerrard (1996), "Stewardship, Collections
Management and the New Technology: old problems, new challenges",
Heritage Forum, [http://www.chin.gc.ca/]
 Quoted in Cuban, Larry
(1986), Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology
Since 1920, Teachers College Press: New York, p.11
 Quoted in Cuban (1986),
p. 9, from Harry A. Wise (1939), Motion Pictures as an Aid in
Teaching American History, Yale University Press: New Haven,
CT., p. 1.
 For an excellent discussion
of the history if information technology and its social impact see
Steven Lubar (1993), InfoCulture: The Smithsonian Book of Information
Age Inventions, (Houghton Mifflin: Boston, Mass.) although it
lacks the richness and depth Dr. Lubar's book, the Smithsonian Institutions'
exhibit "Information Age: People, Information and Technology" at
is also worth a look.
 National Education Association,
"Audio-Visual Education in City School Systems", Research Bulletin
24 (Dec. 1946): 146-8, and National Education Association, "Audio-Visual
Education in Urban School Districts, 1953-54", Research Bulletin
33 (Oct. 1955): 114. Data summarized in Cuban (1986), p.16,
Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 respectively.
 Cuban (1986) p. 18.
 The issue of appropriate
fit between curriculum and content for motion pictures was addressed
early on. In 1910, George Kleine, collected a list of over 1000
educational films in his Catalogue of Educational Motion Pictures,
see Cuban (1986) p.9
 Cuban (1986) p. 19-20.
 Darrow, Benjamin (1932),
Radio: The Assistant Teacher, R.G. Adams: Columbus, OH.,
p. 79, quoted in Cuban (1986) p. 19.
 Lelia Ormsby (1948),
Audio Education in the Public Schools of California, unpublished
dissertation Stanford University. Cited in Cuban (1986), p.20
 Cuban (1986: 25) refers
to the findings of a 1945 study by Norman Woelfel and Keith Tyler,
Radio and the School, (World Books Co.: Yonkers-on-the-Hudson)
which presents the results of a survey for non-adoption of 2000
No radio equipment - 50%
School schedule difficulties - 23%
Unsatisfactory radio equipment - 19%
Lack of information - 14%
Poor radio reception - 11%
Programs not related to curriculum - 11%
Classwork more important - 10%
Teachers not interested - 7%
 For a timeline of NASA's
early manned space flight see [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Timeline/100flt.html.]
 Clark, Kenneth (1969),
Civilization: A Personal View, BBC: London. The TV series
was written and narrated by Kenneth Clark and directed by Michael
Gill, and produced by Michael Gill and Peter Montagnon for BBC TV
aired in 1970.
 Bronowski, Jacob (1973),
The Ascent of Man, BBC: London
 Quoted in Lubar, Steven
(1993), InfoCulture, Houghton Mifflin Company: New York,
 Cuban (1986), p.27
 Ford Foundation has
spend $20 million by 1961, and in 1962 the US Office of Education
added another $32 million. In total by 1971 over $100 million had
been spent. See Cuban (1986) p. 28 for a full discussion of funding.
 See Cuban (1986) p.46-51
for a discussion of five surveys conducted in the 1970s and 80s.
 This list is extracted
from Bruce J. Biddle and Peter Rossi (1966), "Educational Media,
Education and Society", p. 21-2, in B. Biddle and P. Rossi (eds.),
The New Media and Education (Aldine Publishing Co.: Chicago,
 Clifford Stoll (1995),
Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway,
(Anchor Books: New York, NY), p.147
 For information about
the project see [http://www.sunburst.com/mimi.html].
Neil Postman (1985), Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse
in the Age of Show Business, (Viking: New York), pp. 149-154
 Postman (1985) p.153.
 For a brief history
of the development of the WWW at CERN see [http://wwwcn.cern.ch/pdp/ns/ben/TCPHIST.html].
 Available at [http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intro.html].
Initially available at the Library's 'anonymous ftp' site in 1992,
the online exhibit was converted in April, 1996, to the World Wide
 FTP (file transfer
protocol) was released in July 1972. An excellent history of the
Internet is Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon (1996), Where Wizards
Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet, (Simon &Schuster:
New York, NY)
 For a brief history
of the developement of Mosaic see NCSA's web site at [http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Presentations/NRC/Overview.html].
 Available at [http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/toc.html]
 Bearman, David, 1993,
"Exhibits on the Internet", Archives and Museums Informatics
 See Paul Strassmann
(1997), The Squandered Computer, (Information Economics Press:
New Canaan, CT).
 Biddle and Rossi's
predictions of the impact of new media the decades following are
remarkably accurate: "Our prediction is that airborne educational
television (MPATI) is doomed to be abandoned." (1966) p.23.
 William Y Arms (Vice-President
for Computing Services, (Carnegie Mellon University) 1993, "The
Institutional Impact of Electronic Information", a paper presented
at "Technology, Scholarship and the Humanities: The Implications
of Electronic Information", 30 Sept. - 2 Oct. 1992. National Academies
of Sciences and Engineering, Irvine California. [http://www.cni.org/docs/tsh/Arms.html]
 Al Gore (1991), "Infrastructure
for the Global Village", reprinted in (1995) The Computer in
the 21st Century, Special Issue, Scientific American,
 Richard A. Joseph (1997),
"Political Myth, High Technology and the Information Superhighway:
An Australian perspective", Telematics and Informatics 14
 Vartan Gregorian, (1993),
Keynote Address for "Technology, Scholarship and the Humanities:
The Implications of Electronic Information", 30 Sept. - 2 Oct. 1992.
National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, Irvine California.
 SchoolNet is run by
Industry Canada and not Heritage Canada (which is responsible for
museums). This could be because parts of the project, such as SchoolNet
Digital Collections which creates new Canadian content for the Web,
are actually job creation schemes for unemployed youth as well as
a tool to get Canadian content on-line.
 The SchoolNet site
is located at [http://www.schoolnet.ca/site/].
The school number data was provided in an email from Beth Clarke
, Communication Officer, SchoolNet, 23-Sep-97.
 Andrew Dillon (1996),
"Myths, Misconceptions and an Alternative Perspective on Information
Usage and the Electronic Medium", in J.-F Rouet, J.J. Levonen, A.P.
Dillon, and R.J. Spiro (eds.), Hypertext and Cognition, (Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ), [http://www.slis.indiana.edu/adillon/adillon-myths.html]
 See for example, Roger
Penrose (1989), The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers,
Minds and the Laws of Physics, (Oxford University Press: Oxford)
and Daniel Dennett (1996) Kinds of Minds: Towards an Understanding
of Consciousness, (Basic Books: New York, NY)
 The US Department of
Education report is cited in Thomas E. Lowderbaugh (1995), "Teachers'
Material onthe Internet: A Progress Report", in David Bearnan (ed.),
Hands On Hypermedia and Interactivity in Museums, (AMI: Pittsburgh,
 Kevin Donovan (1997),
"The Best of Intentions: Public Access, the Web & the Evolution
of Museum Automation", p.133, in David Bearman and Jennifer Trant
(eds.), Museums and the Web'97: Selected Papers, (Archives
and Museums Informatics: Pittsburgh, PA), pp.127-133
 See, for example, Susan
Gautsch (1993) "An Analysis of Hypermedia Program Architecture with
Individual Differences of Learners," Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, III. Media,
vol. 2, pp.482-487, and David Barr (1997), "Website Learning",
 Donovan (1977), p.127
 P.Weill (1990), Do
Computers Pay Off~, (ICIT Press: Washington, DC), cited in Erik
Brynjolfsson, "The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology:
Review and Assessment", Communications of the ACM (Dec. 1993),
 Quoted in Paul Strassmann
(1997), "Will big spending on computers guarantee profitability?",
DATAMATION (Feb. 1997), [http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/datamation0297/]
 Steven Roach (Aug.
1898) "American's White Collar Productivity Dilemma", Manufacturing
 P. Strassmann (1997),
The Squandered Computer, (Information Economics Press: New
Canaan, CT). See also the extensive bibliography in Thomas K Landauer
(1995), The Trouble With Computers: Usefulness, Usability and
Productivity, (MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.)
 Brynjolfsson (1993)
 Landauer (1995)
 Erik Brynjolfsson and
Lorin Hitt (1994), "Paradox Lost? Firm-level Evidence of High Returns
to Information Systems Spending", [http://ccs.mit.edu/CCSWP162/CCSWP162.html]
Last modified: March 10, 1998. This file can be
found below http://www.archimuse.com/mw98/
Send questions and comments to firstname.lastname@example.org