Vojtech Fried a n d David E. Goldberg Brooklyn College. CUNY. Brooklyn. New York 11210
Can Modern Educational Technology Replace the Teacher in the Classroom?
Many significant observations have been made by scientists in the last few decades. Consequently, science books have become more voluminous. Year after year rriore and more knowledge has to he acquired by students during their college years. Since human brain capacity and student-teacher contact hours have not grown proportionally, this creates a serious problem to the educator as well as to the student. The questions which institutions and,teachers must ask themselves in connection with this problem are: What to teach? How to teach? Who is to teach? How to make more easily digestible by an average student the enormous amount of material a student is supposed to acquire, some of which is difficult to understand? The larger numher of less qualified students entering colleges, the skyrocketing high cost of education per student, and the repulsion a large numher of faculty feels towards teaching all further substantially magnify the problems in education today. There are no general solutions to these very serious and complicated prohlems. The ways and means of solution differ from educator to educator. A great numher of institutions find audiovisual means--educational technology-as the best and most effective vehicle for achieving high quality education. Recently published articles, in this and other journals, overwhelmingly recommend the use of educational technology in the process of teaching and learning. No one would question the economical advantages of the use of educational technology. In the long run, computers, films, slides, and tape recorders are cheaper than is a staff of well-paid faculty members. Educational technology might be even helpful in the methodology of teaching, if not used excessively. A good slide or a well-made film can be very helpful to the student in his understanding of the lectured material. It cannot, however, and should not, even partially, replace the teacher in the classroom. A computer is a cold, mindless, and heartless device and cannot he made responsible for the education of the young and their future. A well-programmed computer can teach a student certain scientific facts, hut is unable to help the student with his everyday prohlems-pedagogical or personal. A teacher is supposed to do much more than just share his professional knowledge with the student. He must he available to the student, to help him to grow up and become a welleducated, hard-working, honest, and loyal member of the society. Even the most effective educational technology is unable to teach professional ethics. One of the characteristics that distinguish a "professional" from a mere technician is the professional's ability to bring considerations of professional ethics into the application of his technical skills. If a teacher is to he sincere in his commitment to professional education, then he must necessarily require that his method of teaching take the matter of professional ethics into serious account. This is exactly what education is about. Unfortunately, most of the papers dealing with new innovative methods in the teaching and learning processes ignore this important phenomenon and make the impression that educational technology is the answer to all educational problems. Nothing can he further from the truth. Despite the shortcomings and the undesired side effects of technologized pedagogy, more and more institutions are putting heavy emphasis on its use in the classroom. It is cheaper and it reduces student-teacher contact hours to a minimum. It helps the faculty to spend more time in the re-
search laboratory. It is an accepted fact today that faculty memhers are much mare committed to research than to teaching. The reputation of a university depends on the kind, quality, and amount of research done in its laboratories. Universities, even less prestigious ones, are hiring only highly talented, research-oriented faculty. Tenure and promotion are granted merely on the basis of research perfor&ce. Very few people are denied promotion or are not given tenure hecause their performance in the classroom ispoor. The main purpose of the universities as higher learning institutions seems to he ienored and DerhaDs even foreotten. A universitv with a !kclass education. is supposed to provide i'studeks Loeicallv. this also includes research. Proeress made hv mankind is in large part due to the excellent research done a t university centers. Universities must continue in research activities. Our lives and the lives of the generations to come depend on the outcome of the research ~ e r f o r m e din nniversities. Research is and must remain an important part of college activities. Research and good teaching make a college teacher respected. How much research and how much teaching may vary from individual to individual. A compromise between the two must he found by each faculty member. The balance can he shifted sliehtlv .. , to one or to the other but neither one can he ignvnvi ent~rely.Uni(~rtunarely,tor a lilrye nunilwr d f a r ~ ~ l t y memhers t h t omp promise is shifted too hravil\ towards red heavy rcsenrch cvmmitmcwts, fewher; d o search. HQ(:HIISC not hwe the time ;and lire rarely a\,a~lel~le tu m+wr iludents' qurstioni, inqidc ur outside rhc cla;srrwrn. 'l'ht! ~ e a c h ~ r ' i dream t d a ) is to ger a good fat grant and hire i u h s t i t u t t ~to~ take care 01 his cla.su.wk n,that he can spend t ~ ~ ods t h e dr~y in the lahorutur). At s o r n ~pre\riy~wlsuniversilics the undergraduate studrnts harely know their lertur~~rs; [he int fclluw, ancl itructim i.; (Ion(, I,\ suhsfitute~~ p w doctoral graduate s t ~ l d t w t s ~ 11 1s our s t n q hrll1.f that i9cllll? mt.tnbers mllil gel 1 1 1 0 1 ~ nersarnallv inwlwd i l l the nrwws of educntiun. For the sake of our students, our society, and mankind in general, let us return the canable. devoted. and talented teachers to the classroom. Years am. - while a t another institution. one of us ~erformed some experiments with the use of technology in the process of education. The observations, made with the relatively primitive means available a t that time, may not he exactly applicable today. Our results have never been published and because, to our knowledge, no similar experiments have been done since, they still may he found of some significance today. An entering freshman class of 400 students was randomly split into four equal sections. The educational procedures to be used in the four sections were discussed with the students, and all hut 17 agreed with their tentative placement. Section I . Normal teaching procedures were used with live demonstrations in the classroom. No technological means were used, except an occasional slide and molecular models. Lectures were performed by experienced teachers and recitation and lahoratory by advanced graduate students. Quizzes were given biweekly. Section 2 The same orocedures were used as in Section 1. exeeot
Volume 55, Number 1. January 1978 / 37
17.
Section 4. Except for the laboratory part, the education was done in a self-study style. Books,a time table, and asyllabus were given to the students. No quizzes were given in this section.
Students in all four sections could consult with the faculty members during their office hours. Two common lecture tests and a final examination were administered to all the students. The lecture testsand the final examination were computer graded. To assure full ahjectivity, numbers, rather than names of students, were used in the process of grading. Final
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Gradess
1%)
(%I
1%)
1%)
A
14 28 40 18
12 24 43 21
12 14 45 29
13 12 44 31
8 C F NO
Dgrade was given.
The roughly equal number of A grades in all four sections confirms the already known fact that a good student can do well regardless of the teacher and the educational procedure used in the class. The grades in sections 1and 2 are relatively close and so are the grades in sections 3 and 4. This shows that an average student in a self-study group can do as well as an average student in a heavily over-technologized section. There is no significant variation in the number of failing grades in sections 1 and 2. The same is true for sections 3 and 4. The number of C grades is surprisingly the same in the four sections. This experiment, with minor modifications, was repeated for three consecutive vears. No noticeable variations were observed in the result
