linear or relatively random approach to teaching/learning was often more effective than traditional training methods. Fundamentally, however, P.I. was flawed: Not all learners liked to be led by the nose, to follow the program's way of conceptualizing or arranging didactic material and events. Nor did the programs do as well in non-linear and non-factual (such as conceptual) information processing. Learning for some is relatively linear, for others it is chaotic--and there is nothing cognitively and pedagogically wrong with chaotic learning, except perhaps that prediction is hampered as in any chaotic system. Moreover, the interaction between machine and human lacked the much broader, subtler, and responsive information processing and humanness which characterize the best interpersonal relationships. Thus P.I. died a timely death. With its demise another technological wonder was hyped and sold as the ultimate way to learn: "Computer-Assi
...