APA disclaimer: This manuscript draft has been posted on the Internet to support this paper's presentation at the 2000 AERA conference in New Orleans, LA (USA). The results here are considered preliminary only and have not been subjected to extensive peer review. This draft is made available for limited circulation only in order to solicit comments and feedback to improve the paper as it is revised and submitted for potential publication. Please do not circulate this paper, in whole or in part, without permission of the authors. (April 23, 2000)

Orey, M., Rieber, L., King, J., & Matzko, M. (2000). The Studio: Curriculum Reform in an Instructional Technology Graduate Program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

In the Fall of 1998, the University of Georgia System converted its academic schedule from quarters to semesters, culminating many years of discussion and argument over the wisdom of the decision and about three years worth of intensive planning and work on the part of faculty and staff to implement the conversion. The Department of Instructional Technology at the University of Georgia saw this as a unique opportunity to reconceptualize its approach to teaching and learning in all of its graduate degree programs and tracks. Among the most radical was the redesign of a core group of courses on multimedia design and development that were part of the Masters degree. The purpose of this article is to report briefly on the design of the new curriculum, called "The Studio experience", and the results of its initial implementation.

We refer to the new curriculum as The Studio experience because it is borrows, at least metaphorically, from studio models historically found in schools of art and architecture. All studio models share certain key features (D.W. Schaffer, personal communication, 1998). First, students work on open-ended projects in depth, over time, and with significant control over the timing, location, and direction of the project. Guidance from instructors or peers with more experience or skills is embedded in the act of designing. Second, projects are shared, discussed, and critiqued among members of The Studio, such as through design reviews and pin-ups. Third, all studio work is periodically presented in public forums. Based on these features, we envisioned The Studio as a space comprised of an assortment of computer-based tools and also as a group of individuals with similar goals working and learning within a community or culture of practice. It is also important to note that we view our studio as being both a physical space situated in a computer lab on our university campus and also a virtual space where students can work at home or at their workplaces while accessing resources and communicating with their studio peers through telecommunications technologies. For example, The Studio's web site (http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/studio) was designed to be as familiar a location to students as the computer lab on campus.

Philosophically, one of the goals of The Studio curriculum was to create a set of courses that implemented a constructivist perspective on teaching and learning. While many faculty in the department had argued in favor of this perspective in recent years and tried to practice constructivist approaches, the traditional one-course/one-instructor model organized around a traditional university schedule and calendar created many obstacles to fully realizing such an approach. In general, the term "constructivism" is used metaphorically in education to refer to both a philosophy and process of learning where individuals construct their own knowledge through meaningful interactions with the world. A constructive perspective, as it applies to our conception of The Studio experience, is based on several core ideas: 1) learning is an active process in which meaning is constructed by each individual; 2) learning is a social activity founded on collaboration and mutual respect of different viewpoints; 3) learning is embedded in the building of artifacts that are shared and critiqued by one's peers.

We recognize that the term "constructivist" can mean different things to different people. Unfortunately, it is often used haphazardly in the literature, sometimes referring to a learning philosophy or epistemology, other times to a learning theory, and yet other times to a pedagogical approach. It is frequently contrasted with behaviorism, but as Burton, Moore, and Magliaro (1996) note, this distinction, when viewed on epistemological grounds, is rarely productive:

Our emphasis on understanding the many facets of design based on the building of artifacts to be shared in a variety of public forums makes The Studio experience consistent with a particular instantiation of constructivism known as "constructionism," a term best defined by Seymour Papert (1991):

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of how The Studio experience is structured (an extensive description of The Studio procedures and student requirements can be found in the "Studio Handbook", available for downloading from The Studio web site). Students enrolled in The Studio experience participate in one of three possible courses:

• Design and Development Tools
• Learning Environments Design (LED) I
• Learning Environments Design (LED) II

Despite these seemingly traditional course boundaries, there are many differences from most graduate courses. All the students interact in various ways through the semester, such as by attending the various studio functions and events (such as workshops and seminars), participating in on-line discussions or readings or design topics, critiquing each other's work, and helping each other through design problems and technical difficulties. There are also formal collaborations built into The Studio model, such as students enrolled in LED II mentoring students in LED I in team approaches to multimedia design. Likewise, instruction is provided through both formal and informal means. Informally, students and faculty are expected to share their expertise and to provide help as the need arises. However, formal instruction is provided through a schedule of workshops and seminars. Workshops focus on skills development with specific software tools (such as authoring packages) and seminars focus on design issues (such as rapid prototyping). It is important to note that attendance at all workshops and seminars is voluntary. Students who feel they already have the skills or knowledge are not obligated to attend.

Similar to traditional curricula, the new curriculum expects students to design projects individually and collaboratively in groups. However, the way in which students are prepared to carry out and manage these projects is very different from the one-course/one-instructor model. Students begin The Studio experience by completing an initial 3 semester credits of Design and Development Tools with the goal of learning a set of multimedia tools while concurrently learning about the general nature of design (an additional 3 credits is taken later to enhance and broaden their technical and design skills). Using a constructionist approach, students build personally relevant artifacts (e.g. an interactive multimedia family album) to learn about the design process for personal motives. Such early design experiences are not evaluated on instructional design criteria, but rather on how well the student was able to use the capabilities of the tools to achieve the goals of the personally relevant project. Upon completion of the first Design and Development Tools experience students have sufficiently mastered a set of tools so that they can focus their attention on developing multimedia using instructional design criteria, first individually in LED I and then in teams in LED II. Again, since all students collaborate in formal and informal ways, there are many opportunities for sharing expertise and knowledge about design techniques that do and do not work based on the conditions of a particular design problem.

Finally, all stages of a student's design efforts are open to critical review and evaluation. The culminating event for all students in The Studio is a public display of their design projects at the end of each semester, called the "Studio Showcase". The showcase is advertised throughout the university and even the community. People who attend the showcase have the opportunity to critique the students' work.

Obviously, The Studio experience requires a very different role for students than is commonly expected in a traditional instructor-led model. Students are expected to take much more responsibility for managing their time and project involvement than in most graduate courses. However, The Studio experience also requires a very different role for faculty. There is a much stronger emphasis on the roles of facilitator and manager than that of stand-up instructor. The Studio experience involves true team teaching demanding collaborative skills and a willingness to compromise. It also takes advantage of the unique skills of each faculty, thus reducing the burden on any one faculty member. Interestingly, we have found that team teaching naturally leads to faculty development because we get the chance to learn skills and points of view from each other in ways that rarely occur in the one-course/one-instructor model.

We have implemented a large scale revision to the way in which our masters students learn about Instructional Technology. We asked for and received feedback from students in the first semester’s implementation. We revised how we deliver The Studio based on an initial analysis of that feedback. We then conducted a careful analysis of that feedback (data) which allowed us to conduct a pseudo-member check of our analysis. We describe the data we collected, how we collected it and what the results of our analysis yielded in the remainder of this paper.

The focus of this project is on implementing a constructivist approach within the context of our graduate program. Part of the implementation is to determine how the implementation is working for the students. The methods described here are those methods we used to determine how students were reacting to this new approach to learning in our masters program.

The participants for this evaluation were all the students in The Studio (total of 23 students in the Fall and 31 students in the Spring). While we do not have the break down for students in the spring, the fall’s numbers have become typical. Of the three classes that make up The Studio, 18 were taking the "Tools" class, 5 were taking LED I, and 5 were taking LED II (some of the 23 students were enrolled in two classes in The Studio). Of the 18 Tools students, 12 were female and 6 were male. Further, 8 were primarily learning Authorware, 1 was learning Director and the rest were learning various tools for designing web pages (FrontPage, Drumbeat, Dreamweaver, Fireworks). In terms of career goals, there were 5 students in The Studio who were doctoral students seeking careers in academia, 12 students were seeking careers in Government or Business and Industry, and 6 students are interested in work in K-12 schools.

The only data that we collected we collected via an online discussion system that is part of WebCT. It allows for threaded discussion. Each thread in the fall was started by the instructor. The threads were:

1. What has worked well in regard to The Studio so far?
2. What has not worked well in regard to The Studio so far?
3. What would be the best way to get data from you, the students, so that you can express your ideas and feelings without fear of retribution?
4. In an ideal world, what would be your top 5 things that you would want as part of The Studio?
5. What do you think about a physical space for The Studio? What would be in it? Would it have network drops so that you could bring your own computer into the network as well as University supplied machines? What resources would it have? Would you want to be able to have a place where you could keep your books, papers, etc.? Would you want to have a refrigerator? What else?
6. Do you feel that the structure for The Studio is about right, not enough, or too much? How would you like to see it changed?
7. What about class meetings, seminars and workshops? Should there be required meetings? Should there be required workshops and seminars? What other kinds of meetings do you think there ought to be?
8. What should be added, deleted, or kept with regard to WebCT?
9. Are there other telecommunication tools that we ought to have in The Studio?
10. Should there be two kinds of possible experiences in The Studio? One would be a residential experience where you have a space assigned to you in The Studio and the other is the virtual experience, where a student could do 95% of their work at home and only participate in The Studio on a virtual basis?

With each student note, they had the option of posting anonymously or to just use their name as the posting individual. In the fall, there were 90 student postings and 28 of these were posted anonymously.

In the spring, we used the results of our analysis for guiding the asking of the questions. In part, we were attempting to have member checks, and we were also wanting to learn if the changes that we made to the studio, were successful in solving problems identified in the fall data. The questions posed in the Spring were:

1. Give Us Your Anonymous Feedback: You should notice when you click on reply that there is a check box with the words Post Anonymously in front of it. I have set this forum up in this way so that you, the students, can give us some constructive feedback on the studio. Concrete suggestions will be acted on if not this semester then surely by next semester.
2. The Studio Culture: In our analysis of last semester's studio, we found that the categories of Studio Culture, Communication and Structure accounted for most peoples comments about their experience. The studio culture is the first category. Part or our goal for the studio was to create a learning culture that went beyond the boundaries of a typical three hour class and classroom. We had some success and we also received some suggestions for improving this. While the studio culture is related to both communication and structure, there are aspects of the studio that have helped to create the studio culture that do not fit well into the idea of either communication or course structure. They revolve around the the entire studio experience and our efforts to create a constructivist culture. Do you think that there is an emerging Studio Culture and what is it? What can we do to keep it if you like it and what can we do to change if you do not like it?
3. Communication: The second category to emerge from the data was communication. It is very important to foster communication and some devices for communication worked, some did not, and the students had many ideas for how to improve communication. While many students liked WebCT, there were many ideas for improving the communication among students and between students and instructors. The first recommendation was to have more face-to-face interactions. One student said that they did not have the motivation to read the discussion because he did not know the people having the discussion. Many people suggested that discussion could begin in a face-to-face fashion then expand onto WebCT. While our goal was to create a culture that supported collaboration, little occurred. The problem was that people did not know each other. The only solution from these studentsí perspective was to increase face-to-face communication. How have we done with this? We have added specific required classes. We added required desck crits. We added photos to webCT. Have any of these changes improved communication? What can be done to continue to refine this?
4. Structure: The final category was Structure. The students by and large wanted more structure in the studio and they had some specific ideas on how to do that as well. Interestingly, Desk Crits, regular class meetings and a pre-showcase seem to fit nicely into the structure category. These ideas not only aid communication, but they add structure to the studio experience. By having required classes and required times to have your program critiqued, you are both communicating among students and adding structure to the experience. One of the criticisms many students had was that they did not receive enough guidance in their contracts both in terms of selecting tools and specifying evaluation criteria. One of the consequences of this suggestion was that we decided to have a default contract for first time Tool students. They all had to learn Authorware (unless they could give a good reason not to). This removes some of the flexibility, but it gives people who are new to the studio some specific guidance in how to proceed in their first semester. Once that semester is complete, they are in a much better position to choose a tool for the second time they take the class. So, students wanted more structure. We added some. Is it enough? What more can be added? What should not be taken away?

These were the four threads that we started. The students started 10 other threads. There were a total of 34 postings in the spring and 5 of those were made by faculty. Although 29 postings seems rather small, particularly when there were 31 people in the spring, there was some very thoughtful comments made in these postings.

Procedure

The ten threads were posted on November 2, 1998 (this was the tenth week of the semester). Immediately following the posting of the threads, the following email was sent to the entire studio group:

Students were then able to post notes at their leisure from this point in the semester until after the semester was over. Notes were posted as early at November 2, 1998 and as late as December 14, 1998.

A similar procedure was used in the spring and students had about one month make a posting.

Data analysis followed the ten strands described above. However, student postings did not cleanly fit into these categories. For example, the first strand asks students what has worked well. Some students would not only post what they liked, but also what they disliked at the same time. For analysis purposes, these negative comments were moved to a more appropriate strand (like, what they did not like about The Studio). Once the data was in the correct strand, analysis proceeded by trying to categorize the individual utterances. Once categories were created, an attempt was made to consolidate and organize the categories. The consolidated and organized categories are then reported here.

We repeated this procedure for the data collected in the spring and the general categories remained the same. However, other interesting sub-categories emerged in the second semester.

We begin with the analysis of the data collected in the fall. We will then turn the data collected in the spring. Finally, we will look for any conclusions to be drawn from these data to conclude the paper.

The Fall

The results fit into three categories. The first category we will call The Studio culture. Part or our goal for The Studio was to create a learning culture that went beyond the boundaries of a typical three hour class and classroom. We had some success and we also received some suggestions for improving this. The second category to emerge from the data was communication. This category is subsumed in the culture category (see, Figure 1). It is very important to foster communication and some devices for communication worked, some did not, and the students had many ideas for how to improve communication. The final category was Structure. The students by and large wanted more structure in The Studio and they had some specific ideas on how to do that as well. We will close our discussion of this data with a view to the new physical space for The Studio and what data that was based upon.

Figure 1. Categories of response to The Studio by the students.

The Studio Culture. While The Studio culture is related to both communication and structure (see, Figure 1), there are aspects of The Studio that have helped to create The Studio culture that do not fit well into the idea of either communication or course structure. They all revolve around the existing structure of The Studio and our efforts to create a constructivist culture.

"One of the things that I have liked about this course is that I have benefited from having three faculty members at once...different perspectives; different philosophies; different styles; different talents...a wide repertoire from which a student can learn in a short period of time." While this was not a conscious decision, the consequence of making The Studio an amalgamation of three different courses is that we each had contact with all the students. Another positive consequence of this choice is that we were better able to offer a variety of workshops (since we individually have a variety of skills and talents).

Part of the constructivist culture was that we allowed students to sign-up and attend whatever workshops they wished to attend. Many students described this aspect as positive and that they wanted to make sure that we kept it as part of The Studio. One of the seminars that we offered was a panel discussion of what it is like to work in the CBT field in Atlanta. We invited three former students to come talk to our current students. Access to these former students' ideas was one of the most important activities in The Studio and The Studio gave the former students access to nearly 30 of our current students. While this was very well received, suggestions were provided to improve this in the future. Suggestions included getting the former students to continue the discussion on WebCT, include K - 12 school oriented former students, and continue to include diverse students (one student thanked us for including a Chinese student, it helped her to see that there was potential for her).

Other examples of how the constructivist approach was implemented and well received by the students included the fact that we asked students to write contracts for the tools they chose to learn. Some students liked the fact that you had "freedom to discover" the tools that you wanted to learn. You could learn these tools independently while at the same time you had access to peers, instructors and books to assist when you encountered a problem. Students were also able to revise their contracts throughout the semester.

Another advantage of The Studio was that students in LED II worked with first time Tools students. This gave the new students a view towards where they needed to be by the end of their program. Several students mentioned this cross-over of the classes as an advantage.

One student suggested that our service requirement was good and ought to continue. She said that this requirement prompted her to go out and work with her fellow teachers to help them figure out interesting ways of using technology in the classroom. She had never done this before, it was the service requirement that prompted her to work with some her colleagues and it proved to be satisfying.

Finally, the fact that students had the opportunity to work with real clients and to work in teams were considered positive. For one student in the Tools class, it was his required two session attendance in an LED II group meeting that allowed him to work with a small team. This team, in return, served as a support for his learning of Authorware. It was this smaller team that created a culture for him to learn Authorware. "On the whole, The Studio experience was interesting and good for me." Unfortunately, this was the exception rather than the rule.

Communication. While many students liked WebCT, there were many ideas for improving the communication among students and between students and instructors. The first recommendation was to have more face-to-face interactions. One student said that they did not have the motivation to read the discussion because he did not know the people having the discussion. Many people suggested that discussion could begin in a face-to-face fashion then expand onto WebCT. While our goal was to create a culture that supported collaboration, little occurred. The problem was that people did not know each other. The only solution from these students' perspective was to increase face-to-face communication.

One suggestion with regard to the face-to-face problem was to post notes along with a photograph of yourself. Several people did not like this idea mostly because they did not want their picture up on a web page and that they did not think that it solved the problem. It certainly would solve the matching of people's names to peoples faces, but it would not solve the problem of trying to develop relationships via an electronic bulletin board.

A corollary to the face-to-face issue was the idea that regular class meetings ought to be held. Because workshops and seminars were optional, we only met as an entire group on the first and last nights. Workshops are fine the way they are, but have some required classes for everyone (this was the main sentiment of all respondents):

• Cross fertilize across the three courses
• Check-in
• Ask/answer process/procedural questions
• Express concerns
• Face-to-face discussions
• See each others programs
• Ask each other questions
• Get help from one another

Another corollary to the face-to-face problem was the improvement of Desk Crits. There were two specific suggestions. First, all students should have a required date on which they showed their program at various stages of development to expose it to criticism. The second was to teach and/or model good criticism.

The last idea suggested for the improvement of communication was to expand the online people database. Specifically, add field for skills that each student already has so that people who are trying to learn a tool can find out who already knows it. Also, add a picture to the database so that we can match names to faces. One person felt that adding a picture might make students feel less "isolated". Another person was against adding information to the database because she thought it would not solve the problem, though she did think that there was a problem. While yet another person was against pictures because she did not want her picture on display and she did not think there was a problem of communication. While there was no consensus on the impact of the database, there was much discussion on this issue.

Structure. Interestingly, Desk Crits, regular class meetings and a pre-showcase seem to fit nicely into the structure category. These ideas not only aid communication, but they add structure to The Studio experience. By having required classes and required times to have your program critiqued, you are both communicating among students and adding structure to the experience.

One of the criticisms many students had was that they did not receive enough guidance in their contracts both in terms of selecting tools and specifying evaluation criteria. One of the consequences of this suggestion was that we decided to have a default contract for first time Tool students. They all had to learn Authorware (unless they could give a good reason not to). This removes some of the flexibility, but it gives people who are new to The Studio some specific guidance in how to proceed in their first semester. Once that semester is complete, they are in a much better position to choose a tool for the second time they take the class.

Interestingly, those students who were learning Authorware also requested more workshops specifically on Authorware. "For Authorware, one week on the frame icon, one on variables, one on navigation, one on decisions, one on movable objects, one maybe on design just for beginners (we are making something - might as well be well-designed), etc." This would further structure the experience of beginning students.

The final suggestion or problem had to do with grading. There were two issues in this regard. The first had to do with subjectivity in grading projects. While this is a continual problem for grading, there does not seem like a good way to make it more criterion based. Even if you specified a rubric for evaluating a project, individual rubric elements are still a judgement and that judgement is based on the judge's experience. That experience is other people's as well as his/her own projects. In the end, there is always going to be subjectivity in grading multimedia projects. The other grading issue was in regard to WebCT.

Several people suggested that using the number of posting in deciding on a grade for participation was not a good idea. The student handbook says that you will be judged based on quality and quantity of postings. This was, for convenience changed to simply the number of postings (a minimum of 2 postings per week were required). Though the discussion of the WebCT postings took place in a different location than the subjectivity discussion, one wonders if people are just sensitive to being judged. Certainly, the number of postings is objective. The quality is subjective.

The Spring

We tried to conduct a pseudo member check in the spring. It did not work out exactly the way we planned. The result is that the data from the Spring is more like new data than it is a member check. However, these data also fit into our three broad categories.

The Studio Culture. Many of the same issues were raised again in the Spring. Issues such as the value of working on teams and working with real clients again were raised. In addition a couple of minor points that were raised were that one student felt a better "sense of community" in the Spring relative to the Fall and that workshops and seminars need to be cast at two levels, beginning and advanced. While these are helpful comments, there were two new issues raised that were extensively discussed. One dealt with getting feedback and help, the other seemed to be about students taking responsibility for their own learning.

A major theme in the Spring was about getting help and feedback. Both of these issues require the student to make their vulnerabilities explicit and public. In an environment like the university, students are constantly being assessed. The assessment process can easily be viewed as one in which the faculty member is attempting to identify weaknesses in students learning. From the students point of view, this assessment process can be seen as trying not to reveal any weaknesses. In The Studio, we ask students to not only reveal their weaknesses, but publicly notifying someone so that they can resolve this weakness. The goal, therefore, of The Studio faculty, is to create an environment where this is okay to do (within an environment where it is not okay to do it). This is a major obstacle for some students, not surprisingly. Several first timers to The Studio suggested that they were timid or intimidated to ask questions of more knowledgeable peers, let alone approaching and asking a faculty member.

Another aspect of the help and feedback category is that desk crits tend to be over a very short period of time and as a consequence, the depth of understanding of the product is rather superficial resulting in "look and feel" kinds of feedback. There is not enough time to dig into any deeper issues. "…(T)he person looking at your work really doesn't have the opportunity to review it in depth. This means that your learning concepts and strategies which lie deeper in the program may never really get looked at…"

Feedback and help is also hindered by the fact that many people work outside of the physical space of The Studio. While some people have been able to receive help and feedback in this setting, others find that whenever they come in outside of class, there is rarely anyone from The Studio in the lab.

The second issue that was raised in the Spring was the issue of students taking on more responsibility for their own learning. For those who posted to the discussion, around this issue, it seemed they were trying to talk to their fellow students as they were trying to talk to us.

In response to this posting, another student suggested that, "If you don't make the effort to use the knowledge of your classmates, you are missing one of the best resources available to you in the studio." We believe their point is that we do need to keep tinkering with The Studio, the students need to embrace the opportunity The Studio affords.

Communication. This category was not discussed much in the Spring. The only issue that we discussed was the use of WebCT. While one person suggested that initially found the discussions to be "tedious", after awhile they realized "what a valuable experience" the discussions were. This person was the lone positive voice. The rest found the discussion too superficial, was just busy work, or was just a waste of time. While some suggested improvements (begin the discussion with a face-to-face discussion that can carry over onto WebCT), one person summed up the experience in this way:

"It's interesting to me that WebCT discussions meet many of the theoretical requirements for a good learning experience (interactive, allows reflection, collaborative, done on my own time, etc.), but in practice the activity didn't interest me."

Structure. There was considerable discussion of whether more structure was required. By and large, for those wanting more structure, they wanted to structure the first tools class more than anything else. However, there was still a fairly large contingent that did not want more structure and suggested more student responsibility as an issue (discussed earlier). For those who wished for more structure, their comments can be categorized as helping students with their own time management, requiring class meetings, and structuring the learning experience.

The primary issue in regard to time management was to break down assignments into components and establish specific due dates for each item. The students want to know "what and when something is due." While breaking things down is problematic, establishing specific due dates seems like a good idea.

The second category is that students wanted more required classes. In fact, one student suggested that there ought to be a required class each week for all first timers.

The last issue regards structuring the learning experience. Those suggestions are:

• Require mini-projects before the end of the semester when the self-defined project is due.
• Provide completed models of all course deliverables.
• Require students to learn a web tool instead of Premiere and Sound Edit in the default contract.
• Provide more "how-to" workshops for all tools being learned.
• Clarify the service requirement
• Clarify the reflection paper requirement.
• Require different books for each of the three classes in The Studio.

The Studio has had some positive effects on some people. The students, in general, like the experience. However, we continue to refine our implementation. At the time of this writing, we are in the fifth implementation of The Studio and we have made changes every time. For example, this semester, we got rid of WebCT. The consequence is that the books are not being read. We will likely go back to what is suggested here. To start the discussion in class and continue it on WebCT. We recommend this approach for others. It makes the science/art issue more an art issue than science. We believe this is fairly unique in our field. We have several folks who have gone out to the work force and they report that they are quite well prepared for their work setting. We have suffered from an appearance issue in that people think of The Studio as being business/industry focused, while we have large numbers of students staying in the K-12 setting. We have not talked about the changes we as teachers have had to go through.

Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, (pp. 46-73). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism, (pp. 1-11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.