What is your highest degree and where did you receive it?

I received my Ph.D. from Penn State in 1987. (I'm tempted to say myMaster's from the University of New Mexico since the campus elevation isabout a mile up!)

How did you get into the field of Instructional Technology?

I had the unique opportunity to begin a teaching career at about the sametime that microcomputers came on the school scene (1979). Nobody knew whatto do with them, but our administration really wanted people to "adopt" thetechnology. I was one of those people. Interestingly, the administrationdid not really care so much WHAT I was doing with the computers. For thatreason, I was left alone to do pretty much whatever I wanted and nobodyquestioned the direction I was taking. I believe I was actually rewardedby taking some risks with my early attempts at integrating the computerinto my fifth grade classroom. I learned to program on my own anddeveloped a lot of interesting educational computer games in partnershipwith my students. I didn't know it at the time, but I believe I wasactually practicing "rapid prototyping." The best software I produced waseffective, I believe, because the students were part of the "inner circle"of the design process. Besides designing and developing my own softwarefor use with my students, I was also using LOGO extensively (I had read Seymour Papert's Mindstorms shortly after it was first published). Atthe time, this all seemed like a natural merger of different approaches tousing the computer and I didn't see any conflict between "instructivism"and "constructivism." I have to smile now when I read about all thecontroversy and debate between advocates of extreme interpretations ofeither philosophy/approach. (I'll try avoiding the "C" word for the restof this interview!)

Besides my computer experience, I also "discovered" a lot of instructionaldesign principles on my own, only later realizing that there were actuallynames for these. I still believe that the elementary school classroom is amarvelous place for learning about instructional technology. ("Sherlock,my good man, what school did you go to learn about instructionaltechnology?" "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary.") An elementaryschool teacher learns very quickly that the focus of school is not thesubject matter, but students' learning. You learn all about flexibility and adaptability. I was responsible for teaching all subjects includingphysical education, art, and music (my "strengths" were in math andscience). I quickly learned that I could not teach all students and allsubjects in the same way. I also learned, much to my dismay, that I wasusually not the best instructional medium. The model of teacher as the"sage on the stage" was not working for me, especially in subjects such associal studies and history. A personal revelation occurred when I foundout about the "media center" operated by our school system (though notlocated my school). I realized that the extra time spent locating andreviewing appropriate media, such as films, made me a more effectiveteacher even though I "subcontracted" most of the teaching of content outto the media. (By the way, the elementary school classroom remains one ofthe few venues where my accordion is genuinely welcomed and appreciated!)

Could you describe your research agenda?

The short pithy answer is that I'm interested in computers, graphics, andlearning. Let me explain a little. I'm interested in how computertechnology might provide learners with highly interactive and highly visuallearning environments. In my earlier research I investigated the use ofcomputer animation within traditional instructional designs, such as visualelaborations within tutorials. Though this "learning by viewing" researchyielded many interesting outcomes, it was largely an artifact of goingthrough a doctoral program biased heavily toward ISD. My current researchon the interactive potential of computers is closer to the researchinterests I had while still an elementary school teacher. In this"learning by doing" research I am particularly interested in learningenvironments that begin with the assumption that learners should be givenmuch responsibility (and consequently authority) for their own learning(hence my interest in "microworlds"). This is not to negate the need for instructional interventions, but rather to better understand when and howinstruction is needed. Therefore, I've done a lot of research recently onpeople's learning within computer simulations, especially when they areprovided with little or no instructional support. I've also been doing alot of work with children to support their ideas about how to designeducational computer games. Their creativity and energy continue toprovide me with a source of admiration and inspiration. I am also juststarting to do research specifically on gaming. I am convinced that gameshave been undervalued and misrepresented. Again, this is based on myexperiences, though I'm only getting the nerve lately to actually doresearch in this area!

How did you decide to do research in that area?

On one hand, my decision to conduct research in this area came simply bywatching and listening to people (especially children) as they usedcomputer technology. I know this is a vague answer, but it comes closestto one of the "truths" I've discovered about instructional technology.Anyone who is struggling with identifying a research topic/question shouldtake some software like "Just Grandma and Me," "SimCity," or "Geometer'sSketchpad" out into the schools. Watch the way children and adults exploreit; find out when help is and is not needed; find out what captivates andfrustrates them; and talk to them about ideas they have. If you couplethese experiences with a lot of reading about research and theory, Iguarantee that you will not be at a loss for future research topics.

I was also motivated to become a researcher in this area based on my firstformal research experience Q my master's thesis. I conducted one of those"effects of LOGO..." studies. Two remarkable things happened. First, Ireceived over 300 requests for more information from people all over theworld. The idea that so many people worldwide could become interested inthe research conducted by a small town country teacher in rural New Mexico was both astonishing and exhilarating. The feeling that one iscontributing to a global forum/audience continues to be a strong motivatorfor me. Second, the process of doing research was a tremendous learningexperience for me. I'm not referring to learning how to do research, butrather learning about the topics I was studying. When one does researchyou get to know the issues intimately. This remains true to me even if theresearch results turn out disappointing! This constructivist side of doing research is usually not talked about much. (Ugh! I used the "C" word!)

 What are 2 or 3 articles or books you have written that you are most proud of?

Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics, and learning. Madison,WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, andcontinuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 318-328.
Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research &Development, 40(1), 93-106.
Rieber, L. P. (1993). A pragmatic view of instructional technology.In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education,(pp. 193-212). Washington, DC: AAAS Press.

I'll resist telling you why I like them so much, despite the temptation todo so merely to inflate my ego. Instead, I prefer to discuss the humblingexperience of have one's friends and family try to read the stuff we write. My parents like it when I send them something I've recently published andmy dad always takes a shot at reading these. (He's retired now afterworking for 40 years for a Pittsburgh steel company. Like a lot of people,my parents are smart individuals who just never had the opportunity to goto college.) I'm a better writer because of his efforts. Here's an exampleof what I mean: My dad: "What does 'cognitive processing' mean?" Me:"Well, it sort of means 'thinking.'" My dad: "Why don't you just use theword 'thinking' instead?"

What are 2 or 3 books or articles by other people that you think are "mustreads" for people interested in your research area?

There are so many. Let me highlight a few (these are listed in alphabeticalorder):

 Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York:BasicBooks. (Look for this also under the title of "The design of everydaythings." All of Norman's books and articles go on my "recommended reading"list, but this book remains my favorite.)
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school inthe age of the computer. New York: BasicBooks. (Of course, I alsorecommend that everyone reads Mindstorms as well, if only to get thehistorical context.)
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners incognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies.Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: Analternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research& Development, 38(1), 31-44.

Who are 2 or 3 people who have had the most important impact on yourcareer? Why did they have such a big impact?

Seymour Papert. Reading Mindstorms came at an important point in my careeras my answer to question #2 above indicates. Although I never find myselfcompletely agreeing with Papert's point of view, he keeps me thinking longand hard about how people and computers might "get along." For this reasonalone I value his influence on me.

Don Norman. His recent books (see above) are excellent sources ofinformation and inspiration on design. They are also very entertaining. Idon't think anyone writes as well as Don Norman.

Ron Zellner!. Ron is the head of the educational technology program at Texas A&M University. I spent a total of six years at TAMU (it was my first academic position). Ron made a difference to me not in any one or two bigways, but in the little things he did each and every day. Ron provided mewith an open, relaxed and fun atmosphere for working . I always enjoyedtalking to Ron about research, learning theory, philosophy, visualization,computers, etc., usually as one of us leaned against the doorway of theother's office (what Ron called the "water cooler effect"). He is that rarekind of individual you can feel open about sharing an idea you know is onlyhalf baked and get healthy criticism without any feeling of risk. Ron isalso one of the most creative and knowledgeable IT people I know.

Could you describe a research project that you were involved with that wasespecially enjoyable or interesting? What made it so?

My current work with children designing their own computer games is what Iam most excited about. It captures well the ideas behind "learning bybuilding" and "learning by designing." I have submitted one importantpaper on the conceptual framework to this project which I hope will bepublished soon. (Feel free to contact me if you would additionalinformation on this. I find it wonderfully ironic that it has taken me 15years to come to the important conclusion that we, as a field, need to"seriously consider play"!)

Another important area for me both professionally and personally has beenmy work with my mentally retarded son. Despite the fact that he has a widearray of learning and behavior disorders, he is a virtuoso on the Macintoshcomputer. I've recently published an article on our "adventures":

 Rieber, L. P. (1995). Using computer-based microworlds withchildren with pervasive developmental disorders: An informal case study.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4(1), 75-94.

(I'd like to acknowledge here the kind support by Dave Jonassen in gettingthis published.)

 What areas of research in IT do you think will be especially important orfruitful in the next 5 - 10 years?

As already mentioned, it's taken me 15 years to come to some amazinglysimple conclusions, such as it's time we seriously consider play.Therefore, I'd like to think that we will be placing more emphasis onresearching the human side of instructional technology, that is, the peopleusing the technology, and less on the technology itself. Unfortunately,the history of our field does not support this view. I must be gettingold, because I'm beginning to see how our field tends to "worship" thelatest technological innovation, a phenomenon that several of my ITprofessors at Penn State warned us about. I'm hopeful that we will seecontinued serious work in the areas of microworlds, simulations, andgames, not because they are the latest fads, but because they address basicissues of human interaction with technology. In fact, it will take realcourage to study these areas if only because they are not examples of the"latest and greatest" technologies.

What advice would you give someone just entering the field of IT research?

These sorts of questions are always brimming with potential but usuallyfall sorely short in delivery. With that as a disclaimer, here's some ofmy advice:

The practical side of me advises everyone to: 1) buy a computer with asbig a hard drive and as much RAM as you can afford; 2) buy Endnote (or someother really good bibliographic database software utility); 3a) don'tneglect your family; and 3b) find a good hobby that has nothing to do withIT research (workaholism is a very real problem in a field like this).

Finally, here's a short list of other tidbits:

Don't underestimate the value of your own experiences in instructional technology. I've noticed a tendency for people (including myself) tofigure if they've done it, it must not be important!

Keep asking yourself the "so what?" question (e.g. OK, the local school district just invested heavily in computers, so what? What improvements are going to be made because of it? How is "school" going to be a betterplace because of it?)

Though I have always found the KISS model personally useful ("Keep itSimple Stupid"), one of our graduate students here at UGA (Emily Gaddy)recently taught me another helpful model called WIN ("What's ImportantNow?"), that I can recommend to others without apologies.

Finally, remember that a "power saw does not a carpenter make." I'll leaveit to you to figure out the meaning behind this metaphor.