3.3 The Impact of the Educational Contexts
This study uncovered a chronicle of ways that computers in the educational context
resulted in changes to that context, due to the deeper contemplation of both discipline
and learner oriented issues precipitated through their use. The phenomena was widespread,
and neither limited to the presentation of the content or the role of the learner.
It even extended beyond the educational context into the faculty's conception of the
broader discipline.
This change is not surprising. In each project, the use of the computer was
determined based upon what it could do that traditional forms of education could
either not accomplish, or not accomplish as readily. It is reasonable that when
an educational experience is designed to do things that were not easily done before,
that the outcomes might be something different than what had happened before.
Within the educational aspects of Context32, not only was evidence found to support the
peaceful and complementary co-existence of highly discipline and learner oriented outcomes,
but distinct suggestions of the ways hypertext systems in particular relate to change in
that context were also found. Landow explains that many of the deeper changes in his
approach stem from the use of hypertext systems:
Once instructors have access to workable hypertext systems, they have to
decide for precisely what ends they wish to use them. Creating hypertext modules
for a course requires that instructors also create appropriate assignments and evaluative methods.
It also requires that instructors rethink their conceptions of education and their roles
as teachers as well. (Landow, 1990, p. 58)
In the following passage, Landow provides a more detailed explanation of a way in
which his creation of the Context32 courseware contributed to changes in his thoughts
and beliefs, and thus presumably in the academic context in which he participated:
Developing hypermedia materials has demanded greater self-awareness of
my goals and methods as a teacher. In particular, my work on this project has made
me think much more both about my role as teacher and about the kinds of information
that students could use. Normally in a survey course, instructors have the chance
to provide some background, perhaps a few interesting facts about the author's life
and some broadly sketched aspects of the political, religious, philosophical,
and scientific changes taking place at the time the work was written. However,
most of their time and energy must be devoted to close readings of the text and
teaching the students how to read. Intermedia provides more opportunities and
hence more choices. When providing the materials for a hypermedia system that
offers the student far more detailed information than possible by other means
the teacher must think carefully about the nature of the materials. One constantly
encounters new questions because of the new possibilities of presenting information,
in terms of both quantity and quality. The instructor must therefore continually
re-examine instructional goals. This rethinking, like the actual preparation of
materials, has turned out to be both extremely exhilarating and extremely demanding.
(Landow, 1989, p. 189)
Further support for the belief in a relationship of computers and change were also
found in the educational contexts of other courseware projects that took place in
a somewhat different environment. Evidence of change associated with computer use
is also apparent in the reports from the third site for this research. The following
account came from Athena, which has been one of the largest and well known initiatives
to implement computers in education ever undertaken:
Many faculty members who have developed instructional modules report
that this experience changed not only the way that they teach the material,
but also that it led to fundamental changes in the way they view the discipline
(e.g. thermodynamics and special relativity). This result, of course was one of
the original objectives of introducing computers in education, and must be
considered as a success. (Champine, 1991, p. 67).
Beyond the change in the role of the learner which is often discussed, there were
other changes concerning the discipline oriented aspects of the courses which
incorporated simulations. While in some cases, the changes that resulted from
computer use seemed to be incidental or more widespread than expected, in other
cases it was the result of deliberate processes. In the case of TODOR,
the entire faculty of a division reexamined their curriculum. The successful
development of the project was surrounded by concerns for appropriate
use of the new technology. At the very beginning of their efforts, the
entire division participated in a major effort to determine the most appropriate
and valuable approaches to using the Athena workstations. They employed an
innovative bi-directional analysis in which they openly and concisely
reexamined their curriculum, in search of the ways in which computers
could contribute to improvements in the communication of their
discipline (Murman, LaVin & Ellis, 1988, p. 2).
They broke down their traditional topics not only by content, but also by the different
fashions in which they felt these topics would be addressed by the technology.
They decided that some areas of existing material could be enhanced through
the use of interactive graphics, because these were topics that it seemed students
found difficult to grasp. Other topics were selected in which the computer curriculum
would be used to replace existing materials because modern developments in the
discipline had caused traditional methods to largely be replaced by computational methods.
These proposed changes in the curriculum reflected larger changes in their discipline
that had already taken place due to computer use, rather than changes they hoped to
precipitate. Finally, some topics were chosen because the faculty felt that the
workstation technology could provide more realistic "hands-approaches" to the material
through problem sets on the computer
(Murman, LaVin & Ellis, 1988).
Further elaborations on these phenomena of changes and explanations for their existence
were explored in discussions of how computers were used in the context of the
Mechanics 2.01 project. The following description by
Bucciarelli bares a clear
resemblance to claims made by Landow, about the possibility of the use of the computer
precipitating wider changes in the traditional modes of transmitting a discipline,
even though the uses to which the computer has been put are somewhat different in this case:
In every subject taught, something is left out. There is no universally
agreed upon list of topics that must be covered in Mechanics 2.01. Something is always left out,
new material is always introduced. It is a question of what's important, from your perspective
and experience, to the preparation of engineers... Now it may be disorienting to realize that
the subject matter of the course, the topics and problems one addresses, the sequencing of material,
the scope and character of the exercises and how students are to work at them, are also up for
redefinition. I don't think full use of the computer will be realized until we admit this possibility.
We are working in that direction in 2.01 with the use of design exercises, but we have a long way
to go before we are confident in our approach and its worth.
(Bucciarelli & LaVin, 1992, p. 9)
Did changes stem from the educator's wish to reform education, or to infuse technology
for technology's sake? In this example, it is clear that the motivation is not tied to
a general wish to include workstation technology, but stems from much broader commitments
on his part, and his discipline in general. In the following conversation,
Bucciarelli further elaborates on the role technology
can play on this process of re-evaluating the ways in which a discipline are taught:
Bucciarelli: The real problem is not just a matter of resources, but instead
it is a matter of changing the way people think of what they're doing in a classroom.
I urge my colleagues to not just think about how this is going to improve what they teach,
but also to reflect on the ways they teach now, and the limitations and the advantages of
what they do now. There are a lot of efficiencies in the way we teach now. For example,
what could be more efficient than the way we lecture? A faculty member puts in an hour
preparing the lecture, an hour giving the lecture. What could be more efficient?
Faculty are not going to change from this efficient system until they're told "yes,
it's efficient, but it's not doing the job." We could be doing a much better job,
and computer information processing technology could be a strong part of doing the job better.
The faculty have to see this is possible, and they haven't been shown that yet.
When you start using this technology, and then reflect on
what you're doing, you find out what you're doing is not adequate, or has made some
presumptions about what students are learning. It calls into question the whole approach
to the course, both the content as well as the way you teach it. When you start doing
interactive problem sets, you're not just doing the same problems. You are changing the problems.
The problems are not the same single answer problems anymore, because the potential is there
for making them more open ended, and for getting the students involved more actively.
So you're changing, you're not just adding on something to do what you're doing now better.
I think that it's only going to get into the curriculum development when you recognize that
the content, style, and format that you are using now is all up for grabs. That doesn't
happen easily. (Bucciarelli & Hopper, 1992)