mccalla@skorpio.usask.ca greer@skorpio.usask.ca (Gordon McCalla) (09/12/90)
An Open Letter Regarding Next Year's Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (alias the Learning Sciences) We recently received a copy of a message sent by Radboud Winkels to the conference organizers for next year's Illinois shindig. He is particularly concerned about the change of name of the conference and the change of focus. We agree pretty much with everything Radboud says. Although the name AI + Education is somewhat awkward, it is probably worth keeping for all of the reasons Radboud states. A change of focus would also be worrying if it meant that we no longer had a conference especially tuned to the interests of AI+Ed researchers. An additional concern we have is the apparent reversal of the trend towards a more mature conference format which has happened over the last few conferences. The conference as proposed in the call for papers harkens back to earlier times when short abstracts were reviewed, or nothing at all was reviewed. One of the big breakthroughs in ITS-88, AI+Ed 89, and the Tokyo ARCE-90 conference this year was the insistence on reviewing full papers and having a full program committee. This makes for more work, but guarantees papers of much higher quality, and helps to produce much better conference proceedings that can form a permanent and valuable record of the conference. Is there even going to be a conference proceedings next year? Is there a program committee? On what basis can 300-word abstracts be judged? More importantly, there is a matter of form in all of this. ILS agreed to put on the FIFTH International Conference on AI and Education. Are they supposed to be putting on a completely new conference of their own invention? Certainly new conferences can serve a valuable role (ITS-88 was one such, as was the ARCE-90 conference). The problem is that this is not a new conference, but one of an ongoing series. Should the AI+Ed conference be arbitrarily changed without adequate consultation with a representative group of AI+Ed researchers? Perhaps a general meeting should be called at next year's conference to discuss issues like the field's name and the type of conference we want. As a point of interest, at a recent NATO Advanced Studies Institute in Calgary issues such as the field's name and future directions for the field were discussed at some length by the participants. Pierre Dillenbourg provides more details of this discussion in an earlier message. A sub-group of the institute attendees were delegated to consider these issues over the fall, to canvass a wide variety of researchers who were not in Calgary for their opinions, and perhaps to arrange a general meeting to discuss these issues at next year's conference in Illinois. It seemed to some at Calgary that the time has come for us to become a little more organized. Although we are in an exciting, unique, and very promising field, our rampant informality has been costing us in many ways: every conference has to be re- invented from scratch, we are known by many different names, our standards have not been consistent. This has led outsiders to question the worth of the field, and has impaired our ability to generate the scientific respect so necessary to ensure adequate funding, whatever the source. The controversy already surrounding next year's conference is a perfect example of the problems arising from too little direction in the field. Of course, we don't want to go too far in the other direction either: It is important to scientific progress that there be a free market in ideas, that the informality which has been so conducive to ready exploration of interesting new ideas be maintained. We certainly appreciate the amount of effort necessary to put on a conference, and we are happy that all of those involved in Illinois have volunteered to do this. We also look forward to visiting the Institute for the Learning Sciences and seeing first hand some of the interesting projects there. We would only hope that some of the recent, but still important traditions established by earlier conferences in the series be re-instated, particularly the conference name and the refereeing of full papers. In any event, good luck to all of the organizers as the various conference deadlines draw inexorably closer! Gord McCalla and Jim Greer
anji@ncst.ernet.in (KSR Anjaneyulu) (09/19/90)
I tend to agree with comments made by McCalla and Greer in this newsgroup about the AI and Education conference. The organizers perhaps changed the name and scope of the conference to make it have a wider appeal. But, aren't there already enough conferences on general issues in education, which the conference seems to be trying to address. Is there a need for yet another? I think that the AI and Education community need an "AI and Education" conference. I am not trying to be narrow-minded, but I think a focussed conference is a big asset for the community as a whole. Anji (anji@ncst.ernet.in)
leonr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Dr Ruben Leon) (09/20/90)
In article <926@shakti.ncst.ernet.in> anji@ncst.ernet.in (KSR Anjaneyulu) writes: >I tend to agree with comments made by McCalla and Greer in this >newsgroup about the AI and Education conference. (...) >I think a focussed conference is a big asset for the community >as a whole. > Yes !!... -- Ruben Leon, Computing Science Dept || Tel: 44 41+ 330 4264 / 330 4463 Glasgow University, Scotland || Fax: 44 41+ 330 4913 USENET: ruben@cs.glasgow.uucp || JANET: ruben@uk.ac.glasgow.cs ARPA: ruben%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk