From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: What can we have for an educational system?
Summary: Intelligent vs. reckless use of technology
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:35:13 GMT

In article <13NOV199209234042@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN Philip) writes:
>
>> I read the other day that the president of Yale has quit his job to
>> go into business with a guy who specializes in cable tv for kids (i.e
>> makes millions splicing cartoons with ads for junk food). This pair
>> of reformers plan to open a chain of private schools based on high tech
>> mutimedia delivery of instructional modules (doubtless sponsored by
>> junk food companies). I guess the teachers will change the tapes,
>> sweep the floor and perform other menial tasks. 

>Every new technology receives this big hype from the education community
>about how it will revolutionize teaching.  Radio was hailed as the ultimate
>teacher around WWI.  All you had to do was find the best math teacher in the
>country, and beam each day's lecture into every classroom in America.  
>Later, when I was a lad in the 60's, TV was supposed to transform the 
>learning experience.  Film-strip projectors were also big.  Then came
>the computer revolution, which, in the late 1970's was supposed to 
>turn teaching upside down.  Now we have multimedia.  Big deal.  Each of 
>these tools adds something to the basket of tools available to the 
>skilled teacher.  None of them has, or will, completely change the 
>nature of teaching, which fundamentally depends on the student-teacher
>interaction.  But I'm sure that this new equipment will become the lastest
>and greatest way to solve our educational problems - for about 5 years or so.

>When will the education community stop jumping on every new fad and
>get down to the business of training quality teachers?

A big one in the 60s was "programmed learning."  The idea was that a
programmed text, or even better a computer program, could interact with
an individual to teach the subject.  Now I suspect that a good program
of this type could be made up for mechanics, such as routine arithmetic,
or calculus computations, or possibly even for rote learning of disease
symptoms.  But it will be routine.  Even for testing the formulation of
word problems, a computer program could only recognize if the formulated
problem had the correct solution, but not if the formulation was correct,
but other than one of the expected ones.

But technology can be used intelligently.  If we had elementary teachers
who understood the structure of the number system enough to answer questions,
we could give them taped lectures, to be stopped when questions arose.  Also,
the teachers would have to answer other types of questions.  This was
considered for lecture-recitation courses, but the saving of a lecturer
or so did not compensate for doubling the number of recitation instructors.

Another thing which I think would be a good idea is video classes, essentially
handled like video conferences, not like lectures.  This would greatly 
facilitate giving "special" courses to students in different locations,
and could even be used to handle the problems of discipline, danger to
teachers, etc.  There are those who deride calculators; but it is more
important to teach Johnny WNEN to add than HOW to add.  Calculators and
computers have made much of what is now emphasized almost irrelevant.

But without competent teachers, not much can be done.  At the present time,
I see no quick (< 10 years) method of getting enough competent teachers.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)