5.0184 Computing: Costs, Teaching, E-Journals, Benefits (9/229)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 24 Jun 91 22:00:43 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0184. Monday, 24 Jun 1991.
(1) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 13:56 PDT (13 lines)
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 5.0176 Computing: $$ and Sense; Privacy
(2) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 14:20:56 -0700 (40 lines)
From: Malcolm Brown <mbb@jessica.stanford.edu>
Subject: Do computers *really* improve instruction? A prolegomena.
(3) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 18:02:46 LCL (46 lines)
From: "Dana Cartwright, 315-443-4504" <DECARTWR@SUVM>
Subject: The Cost of Computing
(4) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 19:07 EST (25 lines)
From: prof Norm Coombs <NRCGSH@RITVAX>
Subject: Objections to paper journals!
(5) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 00:28:25 EST (38 lines)
From: LNGDANAP@VM.UOGUELPH.CA
(6) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 00:02 MST (33 lines)
From: Sigrid Peterson <SIGPETER@UTAHCCA.BITNET>
Subject: Humanist computers: Quantifying the difference they make
(7) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 03:19 PDT (8 lines)
From: Jack Kolb <IKW4GWI@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 5.0176 Computing: $$ and Sense; Privacy
(8) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 14:48:55 EDT (9 lines)
From: P_EMISON@UNHH.UNH.EDU
Subject: RE: 5.0163 Responses: Rhetorica
(9) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 18:17 PDT (17 lines)
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 5.0178 Objections to E-Journals, Annotated
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 13:56 PDT
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 5.0176 Computing: $$ and Sense; Privacy
Dear Willard, Should the question be, why do people question it for the
humanities, and not for the social sciences or sciences? Expense is
scarcely the issue for a lab. We cannot hire a chemist or biologist or
physicist or whatever in midcampus without providing first a million
dollars for the lab that person demands as a condition of coming to
exalt us, for grants, and research. But someone who doesnt do that sort
of "research"? Well, now it seems very expensive... is that not the
issue in this conversation? Kessler
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------54----
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 14:20:56 -0700
From: Malcolm Brown <mbb@jessica.stanford.edu>
Subject: Do computers *really* improve instruction? A prolegomena.
Once again, I think Willard has touched a nerve, as well as a very vital
question: do computers really, actually, and demonstrably improve
instruction? Currently, if I had to guess, I'd agree with Willard: I
don't think there's proof -- although I'm eager to listen to good
arguments.
Before the flames begin, I think we all need to make some distinctions,
since there are many many facets to this question.
First, obviously, one needs to address what is meant by 'improve'.
Clearly computers can take the place of human instructors in some very
limited circumstances (such as self-paced introductions to logic, for
example). But this is indeed quite limited and I don't think that
automating areas of instruction is what anyone would mean by
'improvement' --- or is it?
'Improvement' could mean either (1) something rather quantative, e.g.,
that students learn "more" in the same period of time or learn the
"same" amount more quickly; (2) something qualitative, such as enriching
or augmenting the learning or teaching experience. The quantative
approach seems rather boring and bypasses all the important
philosophical questions (is "more" better? is "faster" the same as
"better"?); but it would seem to be difficult to approach (2)
objectively.
A second clarification that will be important for any ensuing discussion
concerns the level or type of instruction. Computers are used from
kindergarten through graduate programs, and for "normal" instruction as
well as for those with personal handicaps or disabilities.
I agree with Willard that this is a very important and interesting
subject. I too am looking forward to the debate.
Malcolm Brown
Stanford
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------53----
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 18:02:46 LCL
From: "Dana Cartwright, Syracuse Univ, 315-443-4504" <DECARTWR@SUVM>
Subject: The Cost of Computing
The reason university administrators are asking pointed questions about
the cost of computing is simply that it's expensive and getting more
so. Some facts from my institution (Syracuse University):
a) Consider the "obvious" expenditures we make on computing each year.
By that I mean hardware, software, and network purchases, those made
centrally and those made by researchers on grants and those made by
departments. Add in the cost of people hired to work strictly on
computing (the Director of computing, for example). Call that amount
the "obvious" cost of computing.
At Syracuse, that obvious amount is TWICE our annual electricity bill.
In other words, for every $1 we spend on electricity, we spend $2 on
computing.
People sometimes say, for example, that "computing should be as readily
available as is electricity. We provide electrical outlets in each
office, and we provide as much electricity as faculty members need, so
why not do the same with computing?" But that's a foolish argument,
because computing is much more expensive than is electricity.
And we are not a highly computing-aggressive university!
If you start looking at non-obvious costs of computing, things get worse.
Just to carry on with the electricity comparison: fully 1/4 of our
electric bill is for computers (and the air conditioners they sometimes
demand). To put it in more personal terms: the annual electricity bill
at my university for just computing equals the total annual salary of 22
faculty members (at the average faculty salary). Remember, that's just
for the electric bill for computing!
b) Depending on which surveys you read, computing is the second-fastest
rising component of costs in higher education in the United States-- the
first being health-care and workman's compensation costs.
So here's the summary: A. Computing is darn expensive already. B. It's
growing rapidly more expensive.
Frankly, I think that spending on computing is going to slow down, even
if people come up with all kinds of wonderful explanations for why it's
useful, even vital. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that
computing could bankrupt higher education, at least in the United States.
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------31----
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 19:07 EST
From: prof Norm Coombs <NRCGSH@RITVAX>
Subject: Objections to paper journals!
The recent discussion about objections to electronic journals has been
quite titillating. Maybe, confusing. In any case a bit
incomprehensible from my vantage point. Like Gary, in his comments a
few days ago, I am thankful for electronic access to information. It
has put some of us handicapped scholars on a more equal footing. In
general, handicaps aside, computers and networking are decentralizing
power, and I wonder if that is the rub.
I have been sitting here, as a historian, with a marvelous picture in my
mind. I envision these ancient scholars having a discussion about the
drawbacks of paper publication. "It doesn't feel as hefty and
substantial in your hand as a clay tablet. "Words sitting on the
surface of a page fail to burn their way into your hearts like the
indentations on clay or stone."
Well, I'll stop my imagining there, and let the reader's creativity take
over.
Norman Coombs
Rochester Institute of Technology.
(5) --------------------------------------------------------------45----
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 00:28:25 EST
From: LNGDANAP@VM.UOGUELPH.CA
Re: No. 0176. Friday, 21 Jun 1991.
>From: cbf@athena.berkeley.edu (Charles Faulhaber)
>Deans and provosts tend to look askance at requests to
>pour more and more money into a bottomless pit.
Should that not be amended to read: Deans and Provosts of
Humanities faculties? CAI labs are standard equipment in the
science faculties, aided and abetted by the respective higherups.
>From: mccarty@epas.utoronto.ca (Willard McCarty)
>...the people who have to pay for the installation,
>support, and maintenance of computerized labs are worried about
>justifying the not inconsiderable expense.
I have the feeling that we're all missing something here. Funds
there are to equip secretarial staff with appropriate computers;
many libraries or similar centres have open clusters for data
base consultation and word processing. Audio-video based
language laboratories are just as expensive as CAI labs, and need
as much maintenance, but seem to be funded on as regular a basis
as the budget will allow.
The sticking point is the use of computing in the humanities
(where have we heard this before?). And why do we all accept so
readily the arguments that humanities computing is "too expensive"
because/or its usefulness has not been "proven"?
Dana Paramskas Lngdanap@vm.uoguelph.ca
French Studies DanaP@CoSy.uoguelph.ca
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
(6) --------------------------------------------------------------36----
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 00:02 MST
From: Sigrid Peterson <SIGPETER@UTAHCCA.BITNET>
Subject: Humanist computers: Quantifying the difference they make
The sleeping dog of a psychologist/statistician in me is waking up,
growling and pacing around. I vividly remember learning, twenty years
ago, that the "soft" science of Educational Psychology could identify
independent variables [instructional strategies] that were regularly
associated with the dependent variable of measured learning. The
variance accounted for at that time was generally on the order of 20%,
which is not too shabby.
Certainly the traditional guinea pig, the college sophomore, who as
subject has taught us so much about learned helplessness, and snake
phobias, could be prevailed upon to demonstrate the effectiveness of
computers as instructional tools for the humanities. This has probably
already been done, but the report(s) lie buried in the pages of the
Journal of Educational Psychology, never to be read by Humanists.
Instead, we will continue to believe that there is no way to demonstrate
that certain things work well as ways of teaching humanities.
True, IMHO anyone is right to resist quantification efforts by tenure
committees, who deal with the anxiety of judgment by wanting to count
things, whether or not such counts have predictive value.
There are teaching methods that have developed in the Humanities that
may well be more effective that current methods in other fields. I hope
that we find ways to make the case, even adopting scientific methods,
for the effective teaching of thinking and insight in the humanities.
Then my poor dog can lie down and sleep once more.
Sigrid Peterson
Sigpeter@cc.utah.edu
(7) --------------------------------------------------------------99----
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 03:19 PDT
From: Jack Kolb <IKW4GWI@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 5.0176 Computing: $$ and Sense; Privacy
I disagree, Charles. Despite their initial costs, machines of whatever
"intell igence" are far cheaper than human instructors. That's why
administrators love them--the computers.
(8) --------------------------------------------------------------16----
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 14:48:55 EDT
From: P_EMISON@UNHH.UNH.EDU
Subject: RE: 5.0163 Responses: Rhetorica
Subject: Budget cuts
I have heard on quite good authority that faculty are soon to be cut
back to 1000 blocks of memory on the mainframe, plus 1000 blocks of
scratch. Does anyone have a horror story to match this? Trisha Emison
(9) --------------------------------------------------------------252---
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 18:17 PDT
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 5.0178 Objections to E-Journals, Annotated
Yes, but what is the price tag for "free" communication? who pays for
the time ont he machine? tax dollars, in my case, at ucla. the
administration provides t he grant to each user of the e-mail network
each year, but that money comes fro m the general budget, from the
legislators. Whereas journals and newspapers are purchased with
advertising $$$ and the subscribers' $$$. It would be nice, but without
a phone line to the big brain, and tax dollars supporting the big brain
...where are we? the arts are not easily supported; why scholars? It
is a prob lem to get a cultural assumption grounded for good, our
assumption that we work with culture. Kessler at UCLA. PS: I am
simply asking about the basis of our t alk here, which is of course tax
dollars.