Through designing their own software, faculty can maintain ownership of their course content. They recognize that they have the educational expertise and don't leave creation of the software to the "professional." Professors have to re-organize their material in a logical way for the computer, and that process alone makes them come to grips with the material in a new, constructive way (Szoke, Research Programmer, University of Illinois). Of course, the hardware "puts a gleam in their eye." At a recent campus demonstration of the Apple Power PC, the gleams practically drilled a hole in the monitors.

1. The students get contact with the donor's equipment and so are likely to want/recommend/ask for said equipment when they find employment. "In the 70's DEC subsidized the cost of providing mini- computers for most of the "big computer" universities. The result was that DEC grew tremendously in the 80's when all those students graduated and went on to become computer purchasers or key engineers. In the 80's SUN displaced DEC as the university's provider of choice. The result is that SUN now dominates the workstation marketplace in the 90's," wrote Newman.

2. It's hard to change horses midstream. Sticking to one machine makes life much simpler for developing materials and running labs. The developers also make a commitment: One UIUC unit locked onto the Macintosh, and a few PC labs are now unable to use their software.

3. Sponsorship and underwriting of education helps the public image.

4. Free advertising. For example, now the UIUC is recommending that its students buy their own computers, and the university is describing suitable configurations for the students and parents.

5. Faculty may buy extra units or upgrades. The professor will often purchase the same type of system for home or a similar laptop for travel and presentations.

6. Fascinating and useful new software might be written. Faculty and students will develop it, and even more people might want to buy the donor's equipment.

COSTS

With so many people benefiting from computers, you risk being labeled a Luddite if you question the final outcome. Here are some issues to mull over:

The computer is, in a sense, a magnificent toy that distracts us from facing what we most needed to confront -- spiritual emptiness, knowledge of ourselves, usable conceptions of the past and future. Does one blame the computer for this? Of course not. It is, after all, only a machine.

--Neil Postman, Informing Ourselves To Death

Many reasons can be ascribed for the ,failure of computers to live up to its promise, but I think the chief one is that it's very hard to write software that can be as flexible, creative, and caring as a good human teacher.

--Todd Newman, Special Director, CPSR

The money is better spent, I think, on real teachers rather than mechanical ones.

-Allen Holub

Time is a huge investment, at a ratio of 100 to 600 production hours for every one courseware-hour. As for doing it the fast way, making a "page turner," you might as well write a text book. (Szoke)

Hank Bromley, University of Wisconsin, voiced these common fears when referring to the November l 5, 1993, issue of Newsweek, which had pages of paid advertising for computers in schools. "What they're calling for is taking $ l5 to $20 billion of public money away from buying textbooks and chalk and art supplies, from paying teachers and custodians and school nurses, from replacing roofs on dilapidated buildings, and from other needs schools are already too broke to meet, and using that money to purchase their products. And all so that our children can become more efficient workers in their companies, and more inclined to consume even more of their information technology products." The same arguments can apply to higher education.

Our schools have accepted Whittle's Channel One TV in the classrooms in exchange for equipment. Are we as (un)comfortable with what we are doing with computers?

SUMMING UP

If we are going to pour money into technology in Higher Ed, let's at least make sure that it goes for worthwhile projects. This isn't easy. Lenny Siegel, of the Pacific Studies Center, echoed what others have been saying, "I don't know of any case where a computer-assisted training program has grown out of a balanced analysis of unmet educational needs."

Currently, I am on a committee which is reviewing grant applications for one million dollars of student computer tee funds. This money will support faculty in "providing innovative uses of technology in education." I am reading page after page of professors' pleadings for upgrades and new projects, and wondering who should get what. These may not be highly scientific criteria, but I like to give funding when . . .

. . . computers replace huge lecture classes. (Anything is better than piling students into large auditoriums, I hope).

. . . computers prevent science buildings from being blown up (for example: simulated Chemistry experiments).

. . . the computers can be shared by the rest of the campus (in labs which are open at least 16 hours a day).

. . . computers can be used in master classrooms to guide projection, or mounted on carts to be used in many classrooms.

. . . people are safe snaking their way to and from the computers (access for handicapped, safety for women).

In the longer run, we really have to take a hard look at where reliance on computers in undergraduate education is leading us. The Wingspread Report (1993) challenges us to assure that next year's entering students will graduate as individuals of character more sensitive to the needs of community, more competent to contribute to society, and more civil in habits of thought, speech, and action. We are modeling our values for them, by making them "one" with the technology. Perhaps less seductive alternatives would mold a better citizenry for the future.

REFERENCES:

Steven Hodas, "Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools", Leadership and Policy Studies, Vol. ], 10, Sept. 14, 1993, School of Education, University of Washington.

Lawrence McCluskey, Gresham's Law, "Technology, and Education", Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 75, 7, March 1994, pp. 550-552.

Neil Postman, Informing Ourselves To Death, a speech given at a meeting of the German Intormatics Society (Gesellschaftuer Informatik) on October 11, 1990 in Stuttgart, sponsored by IBM-Germany.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education, 1993. An American Imperative. Higher Expectations for Higher Education, First Edition, Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation, INC. or ftp to csd4.csd.uwm.edu, find it in: pub/wingspread/report.txt

Contributions from: Ellen Brewer, Hank Bromley, Rick Crawtord, Jim Davis, Steve Dorner, Nikki Draper, Jon Finke, Allen Holub, Marge Jerich, Tom Johnson, Professor of Journalism, San Francisco State, Jim Levin, Jim McCord, Barbara Meyer, Todd Newman, Evelyn Pine, John Schmitz, Judy Stern, Ron Szoke, Research Programmer, University of Illinois, and Mike Waugh.

[Previous Article] | [Table of Contents] | [Next Article]

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
P.O. Box 717
Palo Alto, CA 94302-0717
Tel. (415) 322-3778 Fax (415) 322-3798
webmaster@cpsr.org