Tom Hewett
Tom Hewett is Professor of Psychology at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, where his teaching includes courses on Cognitive Psychology, Problem Solving and Creativity, Psychology of Human Computer Interaction, and the Psychology of Interface Design. Some research papers have focused on issues related to the evaluation of interactive computing systems and the impact of evaluation on design. Other papers have described the structure and implications of a taxonomy for thinking online instructional computing and have explored some of the pedagogical and institutional implications of universal student access to personal computers. His current research activities include working with a group of computer scientists who are developing a Scientific Problem Solving Environment which integrates symbolic and numeric computing. He is also part of a team of six researchers developing a project in networked engineering design. Education, Computing and Value Added: A Cynic's View of Instructional Computing In listening to some educational leaders rhapsodize over modern instructional technology, it is clear that many believe the Internet and the World Wide Web will revolutionize education through distance learning, asynchronous learning and other forms of on-line classes. The predictions are that educational institutions will be able to reach more people and save (or even make) lots of money with modern educational technology. We should view these enthusiastic claims with a healthy degree of skepticism. For example, consider how money is currently not being spent. Typically, most Universities are unable or unwilling to afford the expenses of wide spread education of faculty in the use of such things as multi- and hypermedia technology for use in teaching. In fact, in some cases, it has not even occurred to the people who pay the bills that there is a need to so educate faculty. The typical University in most countries has no line item in the budget for upgrading the education and training of faculty. However, development and use of computing technology in instruction can be hard, time-consuming work and should not be undertaken lightly by an individual or as a part-time, cottage industry effort. Consequently, education using advanced technology demands a plan for continuing education of faculty in new technologies. Very few such plans are being put in place or implemented. Another reason we should view with skepticism the enthusiasm of the technophile administrators is that we are not experiencing our first educational technology revolution. There have been several (e.g., radio, television, etc.). Historically, every educational technology "revolution" has delivered less than promised and cost more than expected to implement. Furthermore, none of the new technologies have been proven generally more effective than any other in the empirical studies which have investigated their effectiveness. The historically consistent failure of new technologies to show an advantage over the old lies not in the failure of the technologies themselves but rather in the assumptions underlying their introduction and investigation. The introduction and early use of new educational technologies is often in a context in which small, selected groups of students are used in a "pilot" investigation. It is not unusual for these students to be among the more able students and for them to feel singled out by special attention. Many of the costs of development of instructional materials are funded by an external agency and by the enthusiastic commitment of extra, unpaid time by developers. Things look promising. How could they not? The controlled investigation of the effects of the new technology, once it has achieved an appropriate degree of maturity, is usually conducted in an overly simplistic manner. For example, the typical study of televised vs. non-televised lectures looked at the question of Technology vs. no Technology. This type of study investigates the main effects of a particular variable. But the classroom is a complex place in which many interacting things can happen. The questions which should be asked have to do not with the main effects of a single variable, but with the interaction effects among multiple variables. That is, which type of technology is most effective with which particular class of instructional material, and with which particular category of students working on which type of tasks? So if skepticism about claims for glowing future of modern educational technology is justified, what promise, if any, does computing technology hold for education? One thing is clear from historically examples. When a technology becomes ubiquitous it does have an impact. Historically, the widespread availability of the new technology has created new opportunities and new challenges. For example, when every student had access to a pencil for use inside and outside of class, profound changes did take place in what teachers and students could do and how they were able to do it. Similarly, multiple copies of books eliminated the need for one person to read to the class from the book. (Even though this tradition is not yet dead, it is dying.) What changes and new challenges exist when every student has personal access to a computer? One unique opportunity is that of wide dissemination of and easy access to the raw material out of which knowledge is built. The attendant challenge is to create courseware tools which capture and constrain that information and its structure, and which enable the students to find their own way through the knowledge space.For example, machine-as-tool courseware application programs such as experiment simulators can be of special value when one is more interested in the thinking behind an experiment than in the experiment itself. By asking students intelligent questions one can get them to play with simulations and discover the underlying processes for themselves. Personal computer access allows all the time any student needs for changing various parameters to see, "What if...?" Thus, this kind of courseware enables a student to experience directly the stuff from which knowledge is derived and to learn the process of developing knowledge. In other words, the machine-rich environment brings us a step closer to the change in the nature of the instructor's role which has been forecast for years. Increasingly, courseware will consist of special purpose applications programs which the student uses to explore knowledge space within the constraints imposed by the courseware application tool and by the teacher. This kind of courseware and the new instructional computing environment enables finding one's own way through knowledge. Increasingly the role of the instructor will focus more on the process of motivating and guiding students' explorations of the structure of knowledge and less upon transmitting information. See schedule.	program BILL BUXTON ANDY CAMERON MATTHEW CHALMERS DANIEL DÖGL BILL GAVER NEIL GERSHENFELD ANDREW GLASSNER PAUL HAEBERLI TOM HEWETT BREWSTER KAHLE PANU KORHONEN DOUG LENAT JO LERNOUT RALPH MERKLE THEODOR H. NELSON CELIA PEARCE MARK PESCE HANI RASHID BILL SCHILIT DAVID SMALL MARCO SUSANI JOHN THACKARA MICHAEL FREEDMAN TURNER WHITTED ANTON ZEILINGER
LIVE.SCOPE | ONLINE.SCOPE | ABOUT | PRESS | PROGRAM | REGISTER © 1999-2005 scope Verein i.G. & uma information technology GmbH ask@scope.at