[1] From: Leslie Burkholder <lburkhdl@interchg.ubc.ca> (55)
Subject: Re: 10.0720 online teaching
Willard McCarty writes
>Once upon a time not very long ago, at well-known university X, in
>the fine department Y, a certain senior Professor Z decided that
>computer-assisted learning software was a good idea. Although she did
>not know much about the technology, she saw the potential, and being
>politically not without skill, managed to pry out of a central fund
>enough money to purchase development equipment and software. She then
>set to work, and after some months, enjoying the benefits of a course
>off for development work but spending many a late night in her
>office, she produced her instructional package. It was a brilliant
>piece of work, no question -- rich in content, well designed,
>visually attractive, entertaining. The course for which it was
>designed had an enrolment of hundreds. Local facilities were
>provided on which students could use it. They did, and liked
>what they saw. Clearly a success.
>
>Then Professor Z, after teaching this course for 2 years, went
>off to do other things. Her replacement, though
>computer-friendly, looked at the package and decided immediately
>not to use it because the approach to the subject differed from
>his own. No subsequent instructor for that course has used
>the package, and now it is beginning to show serious signs of
>age. Thus 9-12 months of a very expensive person's time, plus
>the time of support staff, plus the equipment cost, bought
>instruction for 800 students over a period of 2 years. Suddenly
>the story does not seem to be about a success but, perhaps,
>about a mistaken approach to instructing students.
>
>My question is, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on
>developing primary resources which an instructor could assemble
>quickly into courseware and then abandon at no great cost? Isn't
>the Web, as the authors of the report cited above, in general a
>better means of providing throw-away software than any
>stand-alone authoring system, such as Hypercard or Toolbook?
Here is another story:
Once upon a time not very long ago, at well-known university X, in the fine
department Y, a certain Professor Z decided that developing interesting
exercises and handouts and other material for her courses was a good idea.
Being politically not without skill, she managed to pry out of a central
fund for the improvement of instruction enough money to develop all these
materials. She then set to work, and after some months, enjoying the
benefits of a course off for development work but spending many a late
night in her office, she produced them. They were together a brilliant
piece of work, no question -- rich in content, well designed, visually
attractive, entertaining. The course for which it was designed had an
enrolment of hundreds. Clearly a success.
Then Professor Z, after teaching this course for 2 years, went off to do
other things. Her replacement looked at the package and decided immediately
not to use it because the approach to the subject differed from his own. No
subsequent instructor for that course has used the package, and now it is
beginning to show serious signs of age. Thus 9-12 months of a very
expensive person's time bought instruction for 800 students over a period
of 2 years. Suddenly the story does not seem to be about a success but,
perhaps, about a mistaken approach to instructing students.
Leslie Burkholder