Well, I hope everyone had a good break and had a chance to read and think about the Nickerson reading. I'm just going to pose a few questions for people to think about, we can discuss them in class if they make you think of something that you really want to bring up.

One thing that I really liked about this reading is that he took the time to try and define what is meant by "understanding". Do you think that his definition is valid? Can we use understanding as Nickerson describes it as a goal in software development, or is the definition too vague and all-encompassing to be useful?

Nickerson also says that understading is a "knowledge based process". What is the difference between teaching for knowledge and teaching for understanding? Is there one? If so, at what point do we stop teaching for "knowledge" and begin teaching for "understanding"?

We have talked about the drawbacks and advantages of simulations during our discussions of Schank and Cleary. How is Nickerson's attitude similar? Different? What would the three of them talk about if they met for coffee? Do you think there are any times when simulation is inappropriate in the reading or in your own experience?

Do you think that computers can really foster a supportive, nonthreatening, environment? Are they "comfortingly impersonal" as Nickerson claims, or potentially unfamiliar and confusing?

Do you think that it's true that people today understand less of their day to day world than people a century ago? More importantly, does it really matter? Is it really necessary to understand the workings of a microwave oven, an automobile, or a copy machine? Can we say the same thing about the laws of physics, linear algebra, grammar rules, etc? What makes understanding one more important than the other?

Steve