edited by JOHNW. MOORE Michigan university, Ypsilanti, 4s1w
computer M e / , 4 8
Will Computers Replace TA's? Professors? Labs? Should They? A Symposium Report )oOd/0 U".
topp
$16-35
Introduction John W. Moore and Elizabeth A. Moore Eastern Michigan University Ypsllanti. Mi 48197 The number and variety of applications of computers in chemical education have grown a t an ever-increasing pace since the introduction of the Altair microcomputer in 1976. I t is becoming commonplace for students to have their own computers, and most chemistry departments have micros available for students to use. There has been a tremendous growth in the number of computer programs available for instructional purposes, although the old bugaboo of re-inventine the wheel is still evident. Commercial ~ublishershave
..
. .
.. .
programs and information about nearly all sources of instructional software. Therefore, the time seems ripe for assessing where we are and more imnortantlv where we onaht to be eoinn in this field of chemical-educatibn. ~ollectiv& we have by now had enoueh exnerience to at least beein to make some iudements about whiih applications of computers are most vduable and appropriate. We can consider carefully how computer-based instruction ought to affect our approaches to-the subject matter of chemistry and the pedagogical approaches we can take to our subject. We can develop new ideas about how to use this new tool, paying attention in this process to the results of educational research. We can do these things, but for the most part we have not been doing them, and we are in danger of getting into the situation depicted in Figure 1.A new tool that is not used innovatively and imaginatively may simply perpetuate and amplify all that is less than satisfactory with the old-fashioned way of doing things. In hopes of opening discussion of many of the points listed above, Project SERAPHIM organized a symposium at the Fall 1983 ACS National Meeting in Washington, DC. Speakers were selected with an eye to broad coverage of various types of computer applications: Stanley Smith is a commercially published author with nearly 20 years of experience in tutorial CAI; Allan Smith is a faculty member charged with training colleagues in a university where every freshman will have a computer this year; Stanley Burden is one who has developed and tested a hattery of analytical experiments involving online data collection and analysis; Jeff Davis is a jack-of-alltrades with respect to instructional technology; J o h n Moore
'
Project SERAPHIM-A Model System for Dissemination of MIcrocomputer-Based instructional Materials. J. W. Moore and J. J. Lagowski. principal Investigators; sponsored by NSFDISE. SED 81-07568. Opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of NSF. 26
Journal of Chemical Education
bs& ruordus, r i 4 a Gamwr, cnlulebr$-
and the mDst l+rhnt
Figure 1. Cartoon by M. Sanders,State University of New York. College at Old Westbury and taken from "Marginalia." The Chronicle of Higher Education. Reprinted with the kind permission of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Copyright @ 1983.
is a proponent of instructional simulations; J. J. Lagowski is an old hand in handling large freshman chemistry courses with comnuter assistance: and Derek Davenoort is a devil's advocate whose spicy comments can be expected to keep evervone else on their toes. This reoort consists of manuscrints sihmitted by the speakers and summary of the panel discussion that closed the symposium. Speakers were charged a t the beginning of the symposium to consider the challenge last summer ( I ) : made in an editorial in THISJOURNAL
a
Fulfillment of the true promise of the application of computeroriented high technology to education requires an uncommon oualitv of thaueht and breadth of vision. Such vision imolies hieh minds we have available
The title of the symposium was made provocative in order to attract the attention of many who have not yet considered the wromise or the limitations of comouters. We howe that manv who read this article will he challenged to take on some of thk costs and risks inherent in experimenting with a new medium of instruction, and will contribute to the discussion we hope the symposium began. The greater the number of creative minds applied to the problems of chemical education, the better. There are certainly plenty of intellectual challenges for those who attempt to apply computers to the task of teaching.
Teaching with a Microcomputer: The Current Status and What's in Store for the Future Stanley G. Smith University of Illinois Urbana. IL 61801 When considering the current status of computer use in teaching and what's in store for the future one can ask: Can ~rofessorshe replaced? should thev he renlaced? and will thev be replaced? TO answer these qiestions, it is necessary tb define what a com~utercan do for both the wrofessor and the student. The ability of a computer t o put k x t and graphics on the screen, accept and intermet student inout. store and recall data, and duralculation;can he molded'into an interactive instrurtional system (21.The maior limitation on the ability of such a system in instruction is the imagination of the lesson designers and programmers. Typical applications (3) include tutorial dialogs, simulations of experiments, practice problems, data collection, control of experiments, and chemical games ( 4 , . These types of programs have been used to supplement lectures ( 5 1 , pru\.ide interactive homework, and prepare students for laboratory work (6,7). Can Computers Teach? Because of its highly interactive nature and the ability to do animations, the instructional approach used with a computer can and should he very different from that in a textbook or a lecture. For exam~le. . . instead of exolainine,. a ohenomenon . the computer can allow the student to experience it thruugh simulations that are designed to illustrate the imnortant features. When coupled 4 t h tutorial material designed to assure that the student understands the simulation and suitable practice problems the computer becomes a new kind of instructional medium that supplements the approaches available in printed matter, discussions, and laboratory work. In a textbook, for example. words mav be used to describe what happensif you campre& a gas in ;cylinder. The process can also he described in lecture along with wictures. But on a computer each student can, through a sinklation, push the piston in and out and collect data on various pressures and volumes. The experiments can be monitored by the computer and individualized help provided to the student only if needed. Even with something as simple as balancing equations the computer can help by. .giving. a table with the number of atoms of each of the eiements in the reactants and the pro& ucts. As you start to halnnce the equatton computer updates the tahle dynamically so you can see what-balancing an equation really means (Fig. 2). I t is clear that:
A computer is not a lab.
You can do a simulated laboratory experiments on the computer, hut that isn't real laboratory work. You can't burn your fingers on hot glass or discover what something smells like on a computer. And remember, A computer is not a book.
I t is easy to tell the difference between a computer and a book-they are very different media. A computer requires new pedagogical approaches. The e f f e c t i ~ i ~ nofi ~'omputer-assisted s instr~~ction, as with all types of instruction, depends on the content, the way it is presented, and the instructional design. Students seem to like working and learning with a computer (5), and, although studies are still limited, the available data suggests that CAI is an effective teaching tool (8,9,10). Thus there appear to he many circumstances under which a computer can replace a professor. Should Computers Teach? If a computer can teach the same material in less time and with greater long-term retention by students than could be achieved by a teacher, then there is a reasonable argument for replacing the teacher. Anyone who can be replaced by a computer should be. However, we should also recognize that A computer is a tool: good teachers cannot be replaced by a computer. A computer will only replace those TA's, professors, and labs that are limited to those types of things that can he done better on a computer. A good teacher will not be replaced by a computer; a good teacher will use the computer to be even better. The objective is not to replace anybody, hut to do a better job of teaching. The computer, as demonstrated by experiments, does serve that role.
Will Computers Teach? The extent to which computers will he used for teaching is critically dependent on the cost of the hardware and the availability of suitable programs. The rapid proliferation of relatively inexpensive microcomputers that have the capability of supporting high quality instructional material is making CAI generally available (11).In 1975 one had to have access to a powerful mainframe computer just to try to do something with computers in instruction. In 1976 if you could put together an Altair kit you could have your own computer for a few thousand dollars. Now, in 1983, for a few hundred dollars you can purchase a computer that is able to support a wide range of instructional techniques. Furthermore, it is likely that in the near future students will have their own
US. Uic keys: t r 1 2 3 5 5 6 5 ~o balance this equation.
A computer is not a book. A book is passive; a computer is interactive. It is also clear that: A computer is not a lecture.
Lectures tend t o be passive. And: A computer is not a hook.
Books have lots of teat. Computers have animations. Also,
Figure 2. Computer display during equation-balancing drill. Note the table of number of atoms of each type. This is updated as each coefficient is entered. Volume 61 Number 1 Januarv 1984
27
