Dwight and Garrison put forth a manifesto, a call to action based on the possibilities hypertext organization presents for teaching and learning. Because hypertext decenters the author/teacher, it presents possibilites for revolutionary change in pedagogy. This change will only happen, hwoever, if we are able to overcome our structuralist metaphysics. Those metaphysics, with the concepts of fixed essences and an unavoidable telos, need to be replaced with a post-structualist one based on transaction.

Dwight and Garrison see most curriculum design and theory as being based in this structualist metaphysics. Citing the work of Ralph Tyler, they demonstrate how must curriculum theory attempts to be content neutral, describing only a method. Such method is centered on clear objectives, determined by the teacher or designer. Their major criticism of Tyler is that he simply perpetuates the ancient metaphysics of presence, with its dichotmies of fact/value, content/method, and means/ends. This curriculum theory places the designer at the center, presumably because he/she knows the telos. This leaves the student as a passive rider on the curriculum train.

Tyler is criticized using Kleibard and Dewey. One of Dewey's central philsophical projects was to destroy metaphysical dulaisms. Dwight and Garrison demonstrate how means and ends are inextricably connected; thus, what is to be learned emerges from the how of the learning, just as the how is influenced by original conceptions of the what. Students ought to be involved in the development of the what and the how. Such involvement is essential for democratic involvement and individual growth.

Hypertext is de-centered, flexible, and requires that indivdiuals be involved in the both reading and authorship of the text. Hypertext, with the possibilites for linking one text to many, many others obviates the notion of a static authoritarian text isolated from other events. It represents the elimination of dualisms and distinctions of author/text and student/teacher.

One thing Dwight and Garrison do not do is speak about hyperpedaogogy and the possibility of community. The social is a vital part of learning for Dewey. I wonder how hyperpedagogy changes, eliminates, or shifts the idea of community and its role in learning. That's an open question I'm exploring further, but it's an interesting lacunae in the article.

The article also brought up some interesting challenges for the on-line course.
1. Is it possible or desirable to create a course where there are no initial objectives given by the instructor? The teacher and students co-construct the learning goals initially, then change those goals as the course and learning progress.

2. What are the best mediums for promoting hyperpedagogy? A messageboard, where students can post thoughts and replies, seems the obvious choice. But are there others? Could I create a mini-wiki for my course? That's an interesting idea. . . I need to check into the technology for that.

3. There's still the community aspect. Can a classroom community be carved out in an on-line space? Does the possibility of infinite connections that hyperpedagogy presents dilute the possibility of genuine community?