Stephen C. Ehrmann, Ph.D.
This is the penultimate draft of an article that was
Ehrmann, Stephen C., (2000) "Technology
and Revolution in Education: Ending the Cycle of Failure,"
Liberal Education, Fall, pp. 40-49.
Trite statements often become trite because they are true.
For example, "digital technology can enable a revolution in
Every five or ten years, when a major new computer chip,
visual medium or telecommunications channel comes along, the
trumpet is sounded: The revolution is about to happen.
But the revolution doesn't happen. By
the time another major new technology appears a few years
later the earlier predictions have been forgotten or
shrugged off. If anyone wonders what
went wrong, they are told that the old technology was
obviously too slow or primitive. This
cycle of failure has been repeated many times: mainframe
computers, personal computers, videodiscs, graphical user
interfaces, HyperCard, E-mail, CD-ROMs, Gopher, the Web.\
As a funder of innovation, author, and evaluator, I've
watched the rise and fall of many generations of educational
technology since mainframe days. I've
finally realized that the revolutions have each failed
because each time we have been fooled by the technology
itself into making the same mistakes. To understand and end
this cycle of failure, we need to revisit technology's
greatest strength which is also, for educational reform,
technology's greatest weakness: Moore's Law.
Double Double Toil and Trouble: Moore's Law
Whether you are in1968, 1988, or 2008, only twelve to
eighteen months “ago” computer chips were only half as
powerful. Twelve to eighteen months from
“now,” they will be twice as powerful.
That's Moore's Law.
Each predictable doubling of chip power enables the
development of surprising new tools for thinking, analyzing,
studying, creating, and communicating in the world. Products
and professions erupt, altering the content of some
discipline, creating new fields, and compelling new forms of
interdisciplinary collaboration in the wider world. The
level of education required for many jobs is increasing as
well. So technological change in the
wider world both increases the number of people who need an
education and changes what it is they need to learn as well.
Moore's Law also has created waves of improvement in the
processes on which education most relies: how people can get
and use information and how they can communicate with one
another. Thus, even in disciplines whose
content is not dependent on the use of computers, the
question is asked anew every few years: "How are we going to
modernize teaching and learning?"
No matter what a department has been doing with computing,
every few years the status quo (again) can begin to look
inadequate. That, in a nutshell, is why
people have, for thirty years or more, been expecting a
revolution in education.
Six Barriers to Revolution
But in at least six different ways Moore's law has also
helped assure thirty years of failure:
a small window of opportunity following
the introduction of each new technology,
the courseware mirage,
Moore's Amnesia, and
Rapture of the Technology.
After describing these six barriers, I'll suggest seven
strategies for escaping the cycle of failure.
a) A Small Window of Opportunity. Chip-based
technologies come and go quickly, thanks to Moore's Law.
Today's new technology usually doesn't stick around
for long: maybe three years, maybe five years, occasionally
ten years. Let's be charitable and say
"ten years." But how long does it take
the curriculum to change? How long, for example, does it
take to change our collective sense of a "normal" political
science course of study? A "normal" general education? A
"normal" college graduate's skill to search, sift, and use
information? Ten years to make such a fundamental change on
a national scale? Longer? If that revolution in goals is
going to happen, it needs to start fast or, long
before the pedagogical revolution matures, the technology it
depends upon may already have disappeared.
That sounds bad. The reality can be worse.
b. Zigzag. A curious kind of dance step
characterizes the educational capabilities of each new
generation of technology: A small step backward precedes
each large step forward. Each backward
zig has several components.
1. At first, not many people have the new
technology. Ironically, most truly
revolutionary technologies will eventually become more
widely used and useful than their predecessors. However, for
a year or two at the beginning of the cycle, the old
technology remains more widely available than the new one.
2. At first, the
new technology is not as good for instruction as the old
technology still is.
The old technology had been around long enough
to develop the capability to handle, for example,
mathematical expressions, non-Western alphabets, and even
writing from right to left or from top to bottom. For a few
years, the new technology won't be able to do those things.
Specialized hardware and software were
developed to extend the teaching capabilities of the older
technology. For example, probes were
probably developed that could enable the computers of the
day to collect data from science experiments.
Bar code readers were
developed that could link teachers to get random access to
images. Of course those handy devices
don't work with the new computers. New
devices of a similar sort need to be developed to do those
things and they won't be ready for another year or two.
Similar extensions of the old technology
enabled people with a variety of disabilities to use the old
machines. With the new technology, the
disabled are temporarily shut out again.
Authoring tools had developed during the early
years for the old technology. Authoring
tools can make it easier, quicker, and cheaper for faculty
members and others to create courseware.
A generation of authors then gained invaluable experience
using those tools. Some of those authors
created award-winning courseware. At
first, however, the new hardware has no such authoring tools
and no group of experienced authors. In time they too will
As a result of this backward step, each new generation of
technology begins its life by in a relatively primitive way.
The courseware students first available usually
consists not of powerful simulations, sophisticated
mathematics, or extensive libraries.
Instead students are supposed to learn by turning electronic
pages of text written, often hastily, only with simple
alphabetical characters that read left to right.
Progress, of course, will soon erase the backward
step and once again move us to new heights. Authoring tools
will be developed, and the technology's power will soon
again bring in those non-Western alphabets, scientific
tools, and capabilities for the disabled.
But, you can hear the ticking of Moore's clock as we
wait for the zag to reverse that zig.
The "new" generation of technology won't be new much longer.
c. Moore's Babel:
Moore's Law also makes it harder for technology support
staff and technology users to speak the same language.
If Moore's Law didn't exist, and technology remained
the same for decades, the problem wouldn't be as serious.
With unchanging hardware and software, many faculty
members would learn to help themselves (as they have with
VCRs), and at least some technology support staff would
develop amore sophisticated understanding of education. But
thanks to Moore's Law, users are periodically find
themselves beginners all over again.
Just as bad, that constant technological change helps assure
that many technology support staff are new; they don't have
much time to learn to look at the world through the eyes of
d. The Interactive Courseware Mirage
Since the days of the mainframe computer, most predictions
of revolution have been based squarely on hopes for a
particular type of interactive curricular courseware.
This revolutionary software is self-paced, features
frequent assessment of student responses, and inexpensive
(at least on a per-student basis). Based on assessment
results, this software guides the student through a rapid
cycle of instruction, demonstration, and student action
(e.g., doing a task on screen). If the
student does this task poorly, the computer offers more
instruction on the topic. If the student
does the task well, the computer offers instruction on a new
topic . Different variations on this
theme have been called tutorial software, teaching machines,
programmed instruction, drill and practice, and computerized
courses. I will just call it interactive courseware.
Research has long since demonstrated that instructional
designs of this type has the power to improve and accelerate
learning by about one third, compared with lectures and
conventional assignments on the same topic.
(Of course, such courseware only works well in areas
where computers can assess student responses, but that
covers a lot of ground.) As a strategy
for a national transformation of how a particular course or
skill is taught, however, interactive courseware has proved
to be a mirage, always imminent, never quite here.
The problem begins with the fact that interactive courseware
remains expensive to develop and update.
With each new generation of technological change we hear
promises that, at last, courseware of this type will become
much cheaper to create. That promise is based on the false
premise that slow computers were to blame for the last
generation of failures. The real problem
is the human expense, however. Designing and debugging
branching educational pathways, for example, takes thousands
of hours of highly trained, expensive human time.
Nor do the expenses end there. Thirty
years ago, each screen of award-winning interactive
courseware would show just a few glowing lines of text
(perhaps all in capital letters). No
more. What the last generation of interactive courseware
could do, even the way it looks, now appears inadequate
because of general progress in computing, video and
telecommunications. Each jump in user
expectations boosts the price tag of tomorrow's courseware.
It takes time to raise the money needed to create the
courseware, and with each passing month the window of
opportunity for this generation of technology closes a
little farther. More precious time slips
by because educators and their institutions often are slow
to respond to version 1.0 of courseware, no matter how
striking its evaluations and no matter how many awards it
wins. It takes time for potential users
to "skim" unfamiliar interactive courseware, far longer than
the time needed to size up a textbook.
Once users grasp what the new technology offers, they may
not instantly leap to obtain it. In
fact, the more revolutionary the courseware's implications
for transforming the instructional program, the more
cautious potential users become: making a change in their
teaching this big could lead to unforeseen problems so why
not wait until someone else has done it first.
To sum up, it takes a year or three to develop courseware
that can transform the way a difficult topic is taught, and
still more years for it to
find national acceptance. In fact, it takes so many years
that version 1.0 has begun to look rather old-fashioned
before it ever does find wide use.
That could be fixed by creating version 2.0 of the
courseware. But version 2.0 rarely
appears. Motivation is lacking.
Developers on a tenure track are rarely promoted for
doing a second edition – it isn't enough of an advance in
the state of the art – and foundation program officers don't
get much credit for funding second editions either.
What about paying them to do this work?
Publishers are unlikely to put up the money because
they almost never realize sufficient return on their
investment in version 1.0. It takes a
lot of money, too. Good second editions
of courseware often cost as much as the first edition, in
part because computers themselves have changed so much in
the intervening years (Moore's Law again).
So instead of triggering an educational revolution in its
discipline, the award-winning version 1.0 of the courseware
fades away. Of course new interactive
courseware will spring up, designed from the start for the
new generation of technology. But it's
often so different from the old courseware that everyone
must start over.
Instead of producing revolution, interactive courseware has
produced barely a ripple on the stagnant surface of the
instructional program. But the
courseware mirage still beckons.
e. Moore's Amnesia
If these failures keep occurring, why has no one noticed?
The first reason is "Moore's Amnesia:" each time
computers become cheaper and more usable, they attract
droves of new users who weren't around for the last cycle of
error. They don't realize that they're
about to make the same mistakes as their predecessors.
Because of the influx of new funders, advocates and
users (and the departure of those who were too badly burned
the last time around), the field loses most of its memory of
all the previous generations of
f. Rapture of the technology
A second reason we seem not to notice our repeated cycle of
error is rapture of the technology:
We are so mesmerized by the newness of the hardware or
software that we are blinded to factors important to the
successful use of that technology. It's
easy to understand the rapture. Moore's
Law guarantees that we will periodically be confronted with
fresh, mysterious instructional tools and media that are
dramatically more powerful than their predecessors.
The vendors of the newest technology reinforce our
love affair by advertising and other forms of hype.
Rapture of the technology reinforces the cycle of failure in
at least three ways.
First, resources required to nurse the new technology are
siphoned away from the very educational improvements that
the technology is supposed to aid. Let's
imagine, for example, that a department wants to
internationalize its curriculum.
Obviously, the World Wide Web can play a crucial role if
enough money is spent on computers and connectivity for
faculty members, the library, students and other key staff.
But it's equally crucial to fund appropriate faculty
development regarding ways to teach about other cultures,
new curricular materials, and a network of working
relationships with people and organizations in other
countries. Unfortunately, rapture of the
technology often dictates that all available funds are spent
to get the best computers and the fastest connectivity.
That's self-defeating because the technology by
itself almost never causes the outcomes we seek. To create a
revolution we need all the ingredients for the recipe;
technology is "merely" an ingredient, like yeast for baking
Second, enraptured advocates argue, "we can't begin to think
about the next educational improvement until after we have
this new technology installed." But, Moore's Law guarantees
that there will always be a new technology that
is not yet installed.
Third--and most devastating--rapture of the technology leads
people to congratulate this year's technology for every
success and to blame it for every failure.
If the promised educational revolution didn't occur,
blame the technology of the day and shift all
hopes to the next technology. If
you can boast that "all our courses are on the Web," who
will have the nerve to ask how the Web has helped those
courses to improve?
Rapture of the technology prevents us from seeing that the
failure of the last technological revolution had little to
do with the insufficiency of its chips, MIPS, screen
resolution, or connectivity. The last revolution, the one
before that, and the one before that, all failed because we
made the same non-technological mistakes each time.
It's time to notice those repeated errors, learn from
them, and escape the cycle of failure.
Seven Strategies for a Revolution
Progress, far from consisting of change, depends on
retentiveness. Those who do not learn
from the past are condemned to repeat it.
-- George Santayana
Moore's Law is real, and there is no way to completely
escape the battering. The world's use
of technology will continue to change, and if we tried to
ignore that fact, we'd be making the biggest mistake of all:
allowing education to fall behind the world in which its
students must live. The key is for
education itself to learn to live with the rapid pace of
change. Here are seven strategies.
Create coalitions to make sure that your
program has all the ingredients needed in your recipe
Relate your efforts to the
technology-based educational revolution that has
actually (though just barely) begun internationally.
Build today's educational revolution on
yesterday's new technology.
Base the educational change mainly on
hardware and software capabilities that are likely to
persist beyond the next generational change in
Emphasize forms of instructional
material that most faculty members find it quick and
easy to create, adapt and share.
Study what's really going on locally so
you can see problems and opportunities in time.
Organize a TLT Roundtable or take other
steps to make sure that your institution is tightly
coupled enough to learn, both from outside itself and
1. Create coalitions to make sure that your program has
all the ingredients needed in your recipe for revolution.
Don't let rapture of the technology obscure the most
important fact: technology's role in any educational
revolution is to enable fundamental changes in what
educators and learners do. Those changes in their activities
in turn can alter who learns, what they learn, how they
learn, and what it costs. None of
those improvements is guaranteed, however, by simply making
technology available. As we pointed out
earlier, technology is just one key ingredient in a larger
recipe. It is almost a certainty that
other ingredients are missing. One of
the most unnatural acts in making a real technology-based
revolution is for the technology lovers to make common cause
with others who also care about the activity and the
ultimate goal. But if they do get together, they can
campaign to build support for the necessary constellation of
changes in curriculum, staffing, faculty development,
library resources, technology support, and assessment.
I learned this lesson years ago, when I served as a program
officer with the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education (FIPSE). In the late 1970s, an external evaluation
showed that our funding had been astoundingly successful at
producing changes that lasted and that spread. One of my
colleagues commented seriously that the evaluation implied
we hadn't taken our jobs seriously as a risk-taking funder.
She argued that our success rate meant we were
playing it too safe. I think she was
wrong. To me the evidence suggested that, on the contrary,
the ideas that won their way through the exacting FIPSE
review were so exciting that the ideas virtually compelled
enough key people in and around those institutions sit back,
think, and then pull together even if they didn't ordinarily
work together. People who might normally
have opposed or ignored one another were forced to admit,
"This idea is to important to be allowed to fail."
The FIPSE evaluation showed that resources flowed to
such ideas from all sorts of unexpected directions.
If technology is to enable a revolution to make education
more creative, or equitable, or collaborative, or
multi-cultural, everyone who cares about creativity or
equity or collaboration or a multi-cultural approach will
need to share what they know and pull together to make sure
that the revolution gets all the ingredients of its
recipe, not just the computers or the connectivity.
It takes a coalition to create a revolution
2. Relate your efforts to the technology-based
educational revolution that has actually (though just
barely) begun internationally. This
larger revolution has several related thrusts, including
greater and more varied participation in learning; more and
more varied resources in use by instructors and learners;
and a greater need for active creative learning. This vision
of revolution is not the fruit of any one generation of
technology. In fact these goals have
been pursued before computing became available to educators
thirty-some years ago and by some of the most ambitious
users of technology ever since. If your push for change is
linked to this one, you should be able to get and receive
more help than if you are moving in some unrelated
3. Build today's educational revolution on yesterday's
new technology. When a new generation of technology
appears, it's time for investigations and experiments, not
(yet) a large-scale push for to buy new hardware and
software for everyone. Before making a large-scale
investment in a totally new technological platform for an
instructional program, questions we've so painfully learned
from history should be addressed.
Have the worst backward steps of the zigzag
begun to reverse?
Has the technology become sufficiently
reliable and inexpensive for mass use and mass support?
If high quality courseware is important, has
it begun to appear nationally and internationally?
Almost no program will develop all its own
instructional materials; is the "import" market ripe to
support your educational transformation?
Equally important, has there yet been
sufficient educational return on programmatic
improvements that depend on your current technological
platform --- improvements that would be disrupted by a
change of platform?
4. Base the educational change
mainly on hardware and software capabilities that are likely
to persist beyond the next generational change in technology:
"worldware." Worldware is hardware
or software that is used for education but that was not
developed or marketed primarily for education. A few
examples include computers, the Web, productivity tools such
as word processors and spreadsheets, and research tools such
as computer-aided design software and online census data
Worldware usually has several features that can be crucial
ingredients for the recipe of educational revolution.
Because of its comparatively large market, it often
changes incrementally. And a new vendor's software can often
read files created by its larger and older competitors.
That's why any faculty member who began using spreadsheets
as a mathematics construction kit in physics courses in 1979
could have incrementally improve her teaching for the next
twenty years, taking advantage of new spreadsheet features
and new ideas in physics but never being forced to abandon
assignments or handouts simply because a spreadsheet vendor
had gone out of business. Without missing a beat, such
instructors could move their spreadsheets from MS-DOS to
Macintosh, from Windows 3.1 to Windows98.
Meanwhile their colleagues who had begun to reform
their courses by relying new interactive courseware might
well have been marooned when computer operating systems
changed, rendering their package obsolete.
Worldware can help us get past the most troubling feature of
Moore's Law: the threat that when the technological platform
changes, the curricular software and the curriculum it
supported must all be tossed out, too.
Worldware has other educational advantages, also, such its
familiarity to faculty (they use it in their research),
motivation for students to master its use (they know they'll
need to learn to use it for future jobs), and a market base
that is large enough to help provide good support materials
and outside training. In these ways,
worldware can reduce stress on the exhausted, understaffed
technology support units at your institution.
Worldware may lack of some of the short-term value of
interactive courseware but it more than makes up for it in
long-term viability and ease of support.
5. Emphasize forms of instructional material that most
faculty members find it quick and easy to create, adapt and
share. Interactive courseware can be
extraordinarily powerful but, as pointed out above, such
courseware rarely has enough users to keep it alive.
Highly interactive courseware has another problem,
too. The bigger and more complex the
courseware, the rigid it is: a challenge for instructors who
want to adapt it to today's students, today's events, or
their own ideas about how a skill or topic might best be
That's not good because some educational research suggests
that excellence in education stems in part from the
instructor's ability to read a class and react.
The best instructors believe that all their students
can learn. They continually experiment, seeking ways to set
each of their students on fire.
Such instructors need course materials that they can easily,
quickly, and inexpensively modify. For
example, a word-processed syllabus is easier, quicker and
cheaper to modify than a typed one; a Web syllabus can be
even better for those purposes because all students can see
the changes at once. This need for quick and easy change is
even more pronounced in courses whose content is somehow
tied to Moore's Law; because the course of study may be
different from last term, in week 4 faculty members may
notice unexpected opportunities or problems.
To sum up: in courses where the need for adaptability is
high, technology-based instructional materials ought to be
easy, quick, and inexpensive to create, use and adapt, even
for instructors with only modest training and experience.
Software that is malleable but primitive may be
better in the long run than software that is educationally
powerful but inflexible.
6. Study what's actually going on locally so
opportunities can be seized and problems avoided.
Continued turbulent change almost guarantees that we
will miss important opportunities and, worse, will be
ambushed by problems we failed to see in time.
Imagine, for example, that you are teaching a course that
uses the Web. You've redesigned the course in ways that
depend upon students using the Web to collaborate on
homework projects. You've never asked
students to do much work together on homework before.
It's now week two of the term.
It's hard to know for sure but you fear that students are
not collaborating on line as much or as well as you'd hoped.
The course's schedule and success might be in
jeopardy. Or maybe everything is OK. Is
there really a problem? If so, why?
Perhaps some students lack adequate hardware
Do some students believe that collaborative
learning is a waste of time?
Do some students fear that if they work
together they will be labeled as cheaters?
Are your assignments so easy for a student to
do alone that it's not worth his or her effort to
Did some students not take the training in how
to use e-mail and computer conferencing?
These and literally dozens of barriers could hinder
collaboration online. But which of these
barriers are actually hindering your students?
Unless you can find out quickly, you may soon be in
trouble you can't escape without real trouble…
Our intuition often doesn't do us much good in such
situations because that our insights were shaped by stable
times. "Muddling through" isn't good enough anymore. The
clock is likely to strike midnight before we have time to
learn what is hitting us, within a course or as an
Fortunately, help is available. The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the
American Association for Higher Education have become
centers for promoting the scholarship of teaching: inquiry
by educators that informs individual teaching while
enriching the wisdom of the community.
The Teaching, Learning, and Technology Group's Flashlight
Program, which I direct, helps institutions, faculty
members, and staff learn to do studies whose findings can
uncover some of those hidden perils and opportunities.
Flashlight provides tools, training, and consulting for
large-scale studies as well as for course evaluations.
The heart of the Flashlight approach: if you want
technology investments to pay off for learning, study why
people do or don't use technology to make educationally
important changes in what they do; don't just monitor
satisfaction with the hardware and software.
7. Seek an unprecedented level of information sharing,
coordination, and collaboration. Carrying out strategies
1-6 requires an unusual level of cooperation among faculty,
staff, students, and external constituencies.
Such collaboration was once rather rare in
educational institutions. In 1976, Karl
Weick, a well-known organizational theorist, labeled schools
and colleges "loosely coupled systems," contrasting them
with "tightly coupled systems" such as assembly lines.
In a tightly coupled system, Weick pointed out, one
person's failure has immediate and drastic consequences for
co-workers; thus coordination and cooperation are crucial.
In contrast, in loosely coupled systems each person's
actions often have little effect on others, especially in
the short term. Thus, loosely coupled
systems attract staff members who love their autonomy.
For that reason, loosely coupled systems are
relatively poor at information sharing, especially
"diagonally" across administrative units and across levels
These days, failure to share information, cooperate, and
collaborate can have unhappy consequences for an
institution. Institutions that are looking outward as well
as inward notice changes in research, work and everyday life
-- changes that suggest a stream of major and minor
improvements in who can learn, what they need to learn, how
they can learn, and what it could cost.
Colleges that can't quickly uncover such information, share
it, and act on it will begin to suffer.
They will fail to take advantage of opportunities or solve
problems because not enough people will learn what is going
on in time. Internal services such as technology support and
faculty development will be seen as uneven: overlapping in
some areas, leaving gaping holes
That's one reason why the notion of "Teaching, Learning, and
Technology Roundtables" has spread like wildfire since
Steven W. Gilbert introduced it in the mid-1990s.
Members are selected for TLT Roundtables so that their
information sharing, debates, and planning can cut across
normal barriers to collaboration in an institution.
For example, many "technology advisory committees" at
non-Roundtable institutions are dominated by technology
staff and faculty members with long histories of early
adoption of new technology. In contrast, among a TLT
Roundtable's most important participants are faculty members
and adjunct staff who are not yet energetic users of
technology; they help the Roundtable gauge what support
policies are likely to work for mainstream instructional
staff. Other TLTR members usually
include academic administrators, technology support staff,
librarians, faculty developers, distance learning staff
members, bookstore managers (who sell hardware and
software), students, student affairs staff members,
financial administrators, and interested parties from
TLT Roundtables meet regularly to share information, to
coordinate activities and, often, to create small action
teams to work on problems that are not within the province
of any single unit or individual in the institution. Most
successful TLT Roundtables are actively supported by the
chief academic officer and other leaders, to whom the TLTR
makes recommendations on key budget and policy decisions.
It's no coincidence that TLT Roundtables began to appear the
same year that studies by Kenneth Green revealed the
beginning of the current mainstreaming of computers for
teaching. And recently a dissertation by
Daryl Nardick revealed that one gain associated with
successful TLT Roundtables is an increased ability to move
information quickly from outside the institution to all
those inside who most need it.
Whether an institution has a TLT Roundtable or uses other
sorts of organizational structures to accomplish the same
purpose, it had better become very good at looking outside
for information, sharing that information rapidly and
pragmatically inside, and then turning that insight into
action plans. These days, the window of
opportunity closes quickly.
Today's world relies upon on
rapidly changing computer technology in almost every phase
of life. That creates a breakneck pace
of change for the academy. In this new
world, the old "muddling through" approach to educational
improvement doesn't work well anymore.
The window of opportunity associated with each new
generation of educational technology closes too quickly.
Ironically the solution is not move faster.
We have already tried, "Ready, fire, aim!" and, time
after time, that prescription has failed.
Instead, we need to take a moment, study thirty years
of past failures, and, this time, we need to get it right.
For more detail on the vision of educational revolution
described in this essay, see Ehrmann, Stephen C. September
1994. Access and/or Quality:
Redefining Choices in the Third Revolution.
Educom Review. 24-27, 50-51.
For more background on the courseware mirage, see Paul M.
Morris, Stephen C. Ehrmann, Randi B. Goldsmith, Kevin J.
Howat, and M.S. Vijay Kumar, eds. 1994.
Valuable, viable software in
education: Case studies and analysis. New York:
For more information on the scholarship of teaching, click
on the button "Our Work" at the Carnegie Foundation's Web
For more information on the TLT Group, Teaching Learning and
Technology Roundtables and the Flashlight Program, see
Alias for this page: http://bit.ly/cycle-failure