fred@bu-ma.bu.edu (Fred Blundell) (05/17/89)
If hypermedia textbooks and automatic quiz generating software were available at universities, students could study at their own pace. The opportunity to be retested repeatedly would motivate them to go back and correct their misunderstandings. One can imagine video presentations at the quality level of the PBS series NOVA, followed by illustrated text and exercises. A student would be required to correctly solve several problems of every kind, at his own pace. Small group discussion sections with faculty or graduate students could facilitate interactive learning. The need for textbooks could be reduced. The cost of both lecturers and textbooks could be greatly reduced. Traditional lectures in large auditoriums are inadequate because so many professors are unskilled in educational techniques, and because multimedia presentations rivet our attention more effectively than a distant voice. Also, a student often needs the opportunity to stop the flow of information to think for a few minutes, which is impossible in a lecture hall. In subjects of highly standardized and technical content like freshman calculus and computer programming, nationwide competence exams should be available. That way, people who cannot afford a college education and people who study technical subjects independently after graduating in the humanities could certify their qualifications. Self-paced online computerized education, and national competence tests could make technical education available to age groups and income groups that have traditionally been excluded. In my hometown of Huntsville, Alabama, it seems that the public library has almost become day care center, with many students from the several nearby public schools waiting there for their parents in the afternoons. Many of them play with the personal computers that are available there. The public libraries could be an ideal setting for computerized educational systems. The suggestion has been made that a free textbook foundation should be established in the image of the famous Free Software Foundation, to make electronic manuscripts available over the network. This is a good idea, but productions of the depth and sophistication needed to attract large numbers of users would require several hundred man-years of highly skilled labor. It would seem to me that the national interest could be served by some involvement by the Department of Education. The philosophy that has relegated all educational projects to the states is inadequate if our goal is to fully exploit the potential of nationwide computation and communication networks for informing people who are isolated from the flow of information for reasons of age, health, economics, or geography. --Fred Blundell
manis@faculty.cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (05/17/89)
In article <611348814.15174@bu-ma.bu.edu> fred@bu-ma.bu.edu (Fred Blundell) writes: >Traditional lectures in large auditoriums are inadequate because so >many professors are unskilled in educational techniques, and because >multimedia presentations rivet our attention more effectively than a >distant voice. Also, a student often needs the opportunity to stop the >flow of information to think for a few minutes, which is impossible in >a lecture hall. As one who (quite unwillingly) gives lectures in large auditoria (I won't comment on whether I'm skilled or not!), I have mixed feelings about this statement, and the implied consequence that the solution lies specifically in multimedia. First of all, there is no doubt that the lecture is the least efficient method known of imparting information. Psychologists have for decades tested various ways of rote learning, and have found that the lecture does most poorly. But do we really want university classes to concentrate upon the imparting of information? I think not. Universities are supposed to be places where students learn concepts and their applications, not to mention clear and critical thinking. The primary use of a lecture should be to motivate students to analyse what they're studying, to give examples which illustrate specific concepts, and so on. It can of course be argued that having 200 people in a room offers little or no chance for dialogue. This is of course correct. However, the solution involves decreasing class sizes more than anything else. Second, multimedia have their own problems. It costs a fortune to develop good multimedia, which means that the primary development will occur on the part of those which have the financial wherewithal to carry out such large projects. The financial justification has to involve amortizing the cost over many years: hence such materials won't be responsive to changes in paradigms or pedagogy over that time. And, as textbooks amply demonstrate, flashy packaging is no guarantee that the contents are worthwhile. Studies of texts in various areas (life sciences are one example; a recent article in CACM on textbook treatments of random number generators is another) show that authors often lift treatments bodily from other books, not bothering to determine whether the source is correct. There is no real reason to believe that multimedia will be any different. A better way of looking at multimedia is as another way of teaching, added to our existing repertoire which includes lectures, laboratories, assignments, books, audio- and videotapes, and so on. >In subjects of highly standardized and technical content like freshman >calculus and computer programming, nationwide competence exams should >be available. Here we come to a philosophical divide. Why are universities teaching material of `highly standardized and technical content'? You can buy good books on programming in my local supermarket. Why should a university offer such material? We all know that the point of teaching calculus to the average person is not to have him/her know any mathematics. Rather, it's to teach her/him how to solve various problems about ladders and bumblebees flying between trains. This will presumably be useful in some undefined way later on. The average university Calculus I course has very little contact with epsilons and deltas these days (and the failure rate is still around 25%!). Rather than considering the best way to condition people to recognise L'Hopital's rule, maybe we ought to stop and ask why we're teaching this stuff. In what way does it contribute to learning, as opposed to satisfying a math requirement so somebody can get a degree as expeditiously as possible? >The philosophy that has relegated all educational >projects to the states is inadequate if our goal is to fully exploit >the potential of nationwide computation and communication networks >for informing people who are isolated from the flow of information >for reasons of age, health, economics, or geography. I don't wish to discuss US Federal arrangements (our own Canadian ones are strange enough!) but as well as `information' one might want to consider `ideas' and `opinions', other things which most definitely belong in a university (and not just in mushy humanities-land, but even, dare I say it? in computer science). If we really want to educate people, rather than just training them, maybe we should stop and decide upon our objectives before we decide how we're going to implement those objectives. ____________ Vincent Manis | manis@cs.ubc.ca ___ \ _____ The Invisible City of Kitezh | manis@cs.ubc.cdn ____ \ ____ Department of Computer Science | manis%cs.ubc@relay.cs.net ___ /\ ___ University of British Columbia | uunet!ubc-cs!manis __ / \ __ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 | (604) 228-2394 _ / __ \ _ ____________ "I'm not making this up, you know!" -- Anna Russell
darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) (05/18/89)
>First of all, there is no doubt that the lecture is the least >efficient method known of imparting information. Psychologists have >for decades tested various ways of rote learning, and have found that >the lecture does most poorly. >.... >It can of course be argued that having 200 people in a room offers >little or no chance for dialogue. This is of course correct. However, >the solution involves decreasing class sizes more than anything else. When I was in school, I found that sections (which were designed for discussions and questions, etc.) had far fewer discussions than in lectures. Part of the problem was that students went to sections expecting to go over answers to the last test, etc. Also, there are not very many students willing to speak up. In a small section, that usually amounts to no-one wanting to enter a discussion. In a lecture, there are enough people that discussions are started easier. This was in CS, where there is plenty to discuss. In math and physics, lectures involved laying down the "way things are", and discussions (if any) centered around "We don't get the same answers, what are we doing wrong". Often the students are so overwhelmed that discussion is impractical. This may have changed in upper division classes since I had few of those in math. >Second, multimedia have their own problems. I haven't seen courses like this. But in a couple beginning CS courses, we had "self-paced" instruction. This can in some ways correspond to self-paced multi-media instruction. There were lectures once a week, but were optional after the first (and were attended mostly by people who were lost or felt that missing a lecture was a sin). Grades were based on how much you finished. After each section, you would have an automated quiz, involving questions or programming. You also had to have a proctor verify that you had done the assignments before taking the quiz. This was all well and good, but it was too easy to let that class slip while concentrating on other classes. You also had to do the sections in order. If you were on an early assignment and had an annoying bug that you couldn't find, you had to stick to it, even though you may have already known solutions to later problems; if you could take partial or no credit for that part, you could then work ahead and get a better grade than otherwise). Multi-media outside of college would help, since you could take as long as you wanted. I also had a 2 unit foreign-language class once (since I had to have 12 units to be full-time, and I couldn't take upper division classes until I finished ALL the lower division requirements) that was self-paced and involved listening to language tapes, etc. There was no lecture (because you could choose any language there were tapes for, and I had Danish :-) but 2 quizzes determined pass/fail. This class and the beginning programming classes had a common problem - you had to schedule your time to the times of the lab, and could only get a few hours a week. The programming class also had pre-sign ups, so you couldn't drop in at anytime (and woe if you aren't there when next weeks sign up is posted). There was another beginning programming class which was the more traditional lecture style that you could take instead of the self-paced class. The catalog hinted that it was a tougher course and should not be taken by freshmen. I proctored in both classes and found the the students in the lecture-style class had a much better understanding of what was going on and did better in later classes. Of course, this may have been due to other factors - only better students took it, it worked in spite of the lecture-style, you covered all the material, not just what you completed, you had to work harder, etc. Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com) We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) (05/18/89)
In article <556@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) writes: When I was in school, I found that sections (which were designed for discussions and questions, etc.) had far fewer discussions than in lectures. Part of the problem was that students went to sections expecting to go over answers to the last test, etc. Also, there are not very many students willing to speak up. In a small section, that usually amounts to no-one wanting to enter a discussion. Depends. I went to a small undergrad school (about 4500 students), and our senior-level CS courses typically had 8-12 students. We had a *lot* of discussion, and covered much more material than equivalent courses at larger schools (at least, the two or three large schools I've visited) did. Then again, it probably helped that everybody in the CS department knew each other by that time. I don't know how well having, say, 15-person sections would work when the people don't know each other.... Followups to comp.edu. Anton +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "VMS Forever!" | VOTE on | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | rec.music.newage! | +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Send votes for/against rec.music.newage to "rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu". | +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) (06/14/89)
In article <2045@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@faculty.cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes... >In article <611348814.15174@bu-ma.bu.edu> fred@bu-ma.bu.edu (Fred >Blundell) writes: >>Traditional lectures in large auditoriums are inadequate because so >>many professors are unskilled in educational techniques, and because >>multimedia presentations rivet our attention more effectively than a >>distant voice. Also, a student often needs the opportunity to stop the >>flow of information to think for a few minutes, which is impossible in >>a lecture hall. >As one who (quite unwillingly) gives lectures in large auditoria (I won't >comment on whether I'm skilled or not!), I have mixed feelings about this >statement, and the implied consequence that the solution lies specifically >in multimedia. A multimedia presentation may not be the optimal solution but it does have a number of advantages over the straight lecture format. A combination of the two may be a better solution. However a taped lecture with corroborative material provides the lecture format and remains a multimedia presentation in the hypertext type of environment. Implementation is the key here in regards to effectiveness. >First of all, there is no doubt that the lecture is the least >efficient method known of imparting information. Psychologists have >for decades tested various ways of rote learning, and have found that >the lecture does most poorly. >But do we really want university classes to concentrate upon the >imparting of information? I think not. Universities are supposed to be >places where students learn concepts and their applications, not to >mention clear and critical thinking. The primary use of a lecture >should be to motivate students to analyse what they're studying, to >give examples which illustrate specific concepts, and so on. You are making an unjustified assumption about what and how material could be presented in a multimedia cai course. Even if such a course was limited to factual rather than to conceptual manipulations it would still be able to replace much of the introductory level instruction in a variety of fields. The `hard' sciences are obvious places for factual based instruction. Even in such `soft' fields as drama there are applicable techniques; a play on a video disc that can be run in parallel with a commentary. >It can of course be argued that having 200 people in a room offers >little or no chance for dialogue. This is of course correct. However, >the solution involves decreasing class sizes more than anything else. If a significant fraction of the initial information can be accrued outside of the lecture hall then the use of lecture time can be improved. Class size affecting informational transfer is true predominatly when basic data must be recapitulated; lowest common denominator limiting. >Second, multimedia have their own problems. It costs a fortune to >develop good multimedia, which means that the primary development will >occur on the part of those which have the financial wherewithal to >carry out such large projects. The financial justification has to >involve amortizing the cost over many years: hence such materials >won't be responsive to changes in paradigms or pedagogy over that >time. And, as textbooks amply demonstrate, flashy packaging is no >guarantee that the contents are worthwhile. Studies of texts in >various areas (life sciences are one example; a recent article in CACM >on textbook treatments of random number generators is another) show >that authors often lift treatments bodily from other books, not >bothering to determine whether the source is correct. There is no real >reason to believe that multimedia will be any different. Cost is not a reasonable limiting factor because of obsolescence. If the implementation is done in an extensible fashion then as new material becomes available it is added to the package. This *increases* the amount of time over which amortization can be calculated. It is not valid to abjure a new technology because of the failures of the old. If bad information is disseminated in a textbook it is extremely difficult to updated only the faulty pages. In an upgradable CAI package modification of erroneous material would be a simple procedure. >A better way of looking at multimedia is as another way of teaching, >added to our existing repertoire which includes lectures, >laboratories, assignments, books, audio- and videotapes, and so on. If you have all of this in a hypertext type of environment then presto change-o multimedia CAI. >>In subjects of highly standardized and technical content like freshman >>calculus and computer programming, nationwide competence exams should >>be available. >Here we come to a philosophical divide. Why are universities teaching >material of `highly standardized and technical content'? You can buy >good books on programming in my local supermarket. Why should a >university offer such material? A university needs to offer material such as this to provide the uniform background necessary for higher level courses. Basic information such as the foundations of calculus does not change from text to text only the presentation changes. If a good basic calculus CAI package was implemented then as it evolved it would provide a suitable uniform environment for learning and would guarantee that all students who finished had a certain level of understanding of the subject. >We all know that the point of teaching calculus to the average person >is not to have him/her know any mathematics. Rather, it's to teach her/him >how to solve various problems about ladders and bumblebees flying >between trains. This will presumably be useful in some undefined way >later on. The average university Calculus I course has very >little contact with epsilons and deltas these days (and the failure >rate is still around 25%!). This doesn't have anything to do with reasons to not develop such a system. If a CAI program teaches problem solving then it can replace the instructing professor. Also the failure bears out the fact that the traditional methods of teaching the subject are *not* satisfactory. >Rather than considering the best way to condition people to recognise >L'Hopital's rule, maybe we ought to stop and ask why we're teaching >this stuff. In what way does it contribute to learning, as opposed to >satisfying a math requirement so somebody can get a degree as >expeditiously as possible? This doesn't appear to have any correlation to whether or not a subject could be taught in a different manner. It is totally outside the domain of the problem. What is required to be learned and why it is required is a question to be asked before requiring a course. It is not related to how the course will be taught. Typically courses are requirements because they hold some necessary information that will be used either to learn more about their subject or in the use of their subject. Programming FFTs is fairly difficult if you failed differential equations. >>The philosophy that has relegated all educational >>projects to the states is inadequate if our goal is to fully exploit >>the potential of nationwide computation and communication networks >>for informing people who are isolated from the flow of information >>for reasons of age, health, economics, or geography. >I don't wish to discuss US Federal arrangements (our own Canadian ones >are strange enough!) but as well as `information' one might want to >consider `ideas' and `opinions', other things which most definitely >belong in a university (and not just in mushy humanities-land, but >even, dare I say it? in computer science). If we really want to educate >people, rather than just training them, maybe we should stop and >decide upon our objectives before we decide how we're going to >implement those objectives. What subjects/styles in which a student is trained/educated is a separate issue from what tools are used to train/educate that student. If the decision is to train in critical analysis of ideas then the tools are oriented towards that approach. If the concensus is to train towards fixed manipulations then they are appropriately changed. Selecting objectives does not invalidate the concept of multimedia CAI. The selection process is a criteria in the development. CAI to teach the basics, professors to do the rest, shades ============================================================================ | But I that am not shaped for sport- | Geoffrey D. Cooper | | ive trick, nor formed to court an | cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com | | amorous looking glass... | business (508) 467-3678 | | | home (617) 925-1099 | ============================================================================ Note: I don't work for DEC I'm a consultant. My opinions are just that MINE!