I don't know whether thisclarifies or muddies the waters, but what I think of as "product" is not separate from "process" but the (theoretical) last step in a process--the entelechy to which the process points, if you like. Let me put it another way. Most students, being intelligent human beings, don't take process-for-process-sake very seriously unless they can see what it is they're working towards, however dimly. There's a real difference between learning to build a house by working with lumberand nails in the abstract, and learning by building a house, even if it turns out to be a shack that the first stroing wind will blow down. The "real" learning is both cases is in getting the feel of the wood, making mistakes and getting out of them, learning the relationship between an idea in the head and what some wood really looks like when cut and nailed together. But the sense of a house at the end of it is the force that drives the process along, gives you something to get up in the morning for. So it is with texts. I think that Russ is right that a "dialogic" process, a process of discovery, is better than a purely instrumental process. (The latter is what drives students to copy, or download, their texts instead of making them themselves.) But the idea of producing a text at the end is not to reduce the process to the "merely" useful but rather to see the emerging of something as being vital to the whole enterprise. It sticks all the pieces of learning together instead of letting them drift as isolated bits. Time for lunch. But the most improtant question, of course, is--Rick, do you think you'll get your pantload of money for the Web pedagogy, and if so, do you think that you can subvert whoever's agenda is involved and spend it so that students really learn something? Sounds like an exciting opportunity. Doug References: <[log in to unmask]>