http://www.itp.berkeley.edu/ITP/PlanningForTechInEdu.html (PC Press Internet CD, 03/1996)
May 11, 1995
To: Instructional Technology Seminar
Fr: Marcia C. Linn
Re: Repertoire of strategies for Instructional Technology in Higher Education
The boundaries between lectures, discussions, laboratories, and
self-paced learning continue to blur as technology is integrated into
teaching and learning. This memo summarizes the options and identifies
issues for typical alternatives. Ideally, campuses should offer a mix of
strategies to meet the wide range of needs. Generally, solutions should
be driven by pedagogical needs.
LARGE-CLASS LECTURE
Typical options
Standard classroom with chalk and overhead projector
%Overhead projector and LCD panel installed on a cart (visible by up to
50 people depending on room lighting)
%Proxima projector on a cart
%Video monitors and VCR
%Multimedia classroom (computers, projector, staff)
Costs
%Overhead projector: $200
%LCD panel and projector: $200/$5000
%Proxima: $6000-9000
%Video monitors and VCR: $1500-3000
%Multimedia classroom: $20,000 and FTE
Issues
%Lectures have limited educational value
%Faculty wishing to present computer material need technical training and
good fortune
%Faculty operating a multimedia lectern regularly require training that
Compares to flight school
%Faculty need training to design effective presentations
Benefits
%Students like varied format
%Technological presentations can make new representations visible to
students including scientific visualizations, simulations, models, and
animation
%Computer presentations are effective for teaching software skills
DISTANCE LEARNING
Typical options
%Videotape the lecture and distribute on PBS or through Blockbuster
%Broadcast the lecture on Cable TV
%Access the lecture from a video server
%Broadcast using interactive video between established facilities
Costs
%Videotape lecture sand distribute: $50/hr plus $20 per tape
%Produce and broadcast: start-up and annual plus a one-time recording
cost (which many estimate at $2000/minute)
%Access on server: $10,000 server and high speed network plus $5,000
Personal machine and FTE
%Interactive video: $4M start-up and network plus FTE annual cost
Issues
%Still a lecture; may introduce new course goals
%Students less interested in video than in a live lecture
%Usually combined with discussion (see next topic)
%Faculty needs as for class lecture
Benefits
%Same as for class lecture
%Increase course audience
%Increase faculty/student ratio
%Possible revenue source
CLASS DISCUSSION
Options
%Face-to-face meeting with TA or instructor
%E-mail discussion with a TA, instructor, or other experts
%Laboratory discussions as Daedalus software supports
%Collaborative software discussion, facilitated with video kiosk (SpeakEasy)
%Computer conferences with CU-SeeMe, etc.
%Video conferencing in established facility
Costs
%TAs: 0.5 FTE for 40 students
%Laboratory: TA and computer lab plus software license
%Collaborative software: Machine access in lab plus cost of software.
%Conferencing: Computers plus cameras ($100 each) plus software
%Video: $4M start-up and 100K/yr plus FTE costs is one estimate
Issues
%Faculty need support to create effective discussion topics and use
technology well
%In typical discussions 80% of comments are contributed by 20% of
participants. Males dominate "face to face" discussions
%Discussions can reinforce stereotypes
%Technology may alter who contributes (on the Internet nobody knows I am
a dog)
%Technology may change nature of discussion depending on nature of software
%Comments of students may be "published" for others to read
Benefits
%Increase access to discussion
%Could improve respect and quality of discussion
%Save travel costs, flexible hours for some options
COMPUTER-ENHANCED LABORATORIES
Options
%Scheduled lab, monitored by faculty or TA
%Drop-in lab
%Student owned computer, connected to lab
Costs
%Scheduled lab: $2/seat/hour (based on 80 hrs. weekly use and 3 year
replacement cycle) plus cost of faculty/TA
%Drop-in lab: $2/seat/hour
%Student owned machine: $2000-5000 for undergraduate career
Issues
%Faculty need support of experts in pedagogy and technology to design courses
%Course design for productive labs requires trial and refinement
%Software site-licensing necessary
%Software access for students necessary
%New course goals with technology need departmental decision
%Student opportunities to work jointly in collaborative groups require
Monitoring and redesign
Benefits
%Students learn software for the workplace
%Student ownership efficient since shifts costs to learner while
promoting useful skills
%Students can capitalize on social context of learning
%Can help students become autonomous learners
%Redesign can increase course efficiency (e.g. self-paced)
%Software can free students to learn
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS OR PORTFOLIO ACTIVITIES
Options
%Print materials and face-to-face meetings (e.g. Empire State)
%Electronic assignments and face-to-face and electronic meetings
%Distance conferencing via phone and video; electronic assignments and
resources; (optional) electronic collaboration with other learners or
experts
%Technological support and distance conferencing and collaboration
Costs
%Print option costs depend on faculty/student ratio; no technology necessary
%Electronic option requires communication technologies but not classrooms
%Distance conferencing requires teleconferencing facilities or network
options like CU-SeeMe for both faculty and students
%Support in terms of collaboration technology currently being researched
Issues
%Students learn to work autonomously under faculty supervision but may
not succeed
%Project design requires trial and refinement as well as regular
RcorrectionsS along the way
%Faculty need considerable expertise in the topic of students' projects
%Faculty need skill in guiding and motivating students
%Technology best suited to supporting collaborative projects under
Development Benefits
%Learning experiences are authentic, close to workplace
%Students become autonomous (or fail)
%Flexible student options available
CONCLUSIONS
Options for technology in Higher Education are broad and expanding
regularly. Every institution is experimenting but often these
experiences are not shared widely enough. Faculty need more ways to
build on each other's successes.
Costs
Costs for technology vary widely. For computer access, options include
$2-4/hour/seat for labs to $2000-5000/4-year career for student ownership
(see Appendix A). If ownership is shifted to students, access can
increase dramatically without added cost.
In lectures, options include standard classrooms with minimal marginal
costs up to multimedia classrooms with optional video conferencing
costing millions of dollars. When considering costs and benefits for
lectures, administrators typically anticipate "savings" from increased
course size and reduced faculty salaries. Another option tested is to
reduce facility costs, even eliminating the need for a campus, by relying
on student projects instead of lectures and discussions. This option has
been most successful for mature, part-time students.
Issues
Both logistic and pedagogical issues influence the effectiveness of these
options. Designs for multimedia classrooms, laboratories and video
conferencing facilities are controversial and many alternatives are just
being tested.
Design for technology-enhance courses remains challenging. At Berkeley,
we have synthesized our experiences in a number of articles and research
reports (Kersteen, Linn, Clancy, & Hardyck, 1988; Linn & Clancy, 1992;
Linn, diSessa, Pea, & Songer, 1994; Rusch & Linn, 1994) as well as in
the Instructional Technology Program Newsletter.
We note that instruction must address issues having to do with course
goals, with making complex thinking visible, with helping students learn
autonomously, and with creating effective social support for learning.
Typically course redesign works best when a partnership involving experts
in the discipline (faculty), experts in technology, and experts in
pedagogy is formed.
Benefits
Benefits from using technology are entwined with the benefits of course
redesign. Often redesigned courses have new goals, making comparisons
between original and technology-enhanced courses troublesome. The
following sorts of benefits are often found.
Indicators of success
%trial and refinement--better courses result from evaluating effectiveness
%efficiency--more material is taught and learned
%authenticity--courses feature more authentic, complex, comprehensive
problems and potential solutions
%motivation--students more satisfied with their courses
%visualization--alternative models, simulations, and other approaches
reach more students, resulting in more students succeeding
%career advancement--students better prepared for the workplace as result
of learning workplace software, collaborative problem solving methods,
and electronic retrieval strategies
%autonomy--students better lifelong learners as result of experience with
sustained, independent learning. Students learn to critique as well as
understand new information and to monitor their own learning strategies
%integrated understanding--students gain broader, more comprehensive view of individual fields (e.g., nature of scientific advance) and make more
connections between course experiences and life experiences (e.g., link
statistics to environmental risk assessment)
Future instructional technology support roles
%Participate in consortia like "common solutions," and Learning
Technology Consortium, and New Media Centers, and NLII
%Help faculty build on solutions of others; find ways to share materials
for complex platforms like Mathematica, Maple, Working Model, Storyspace;
publish solutions like CUPLE; develop and distribute self-paced courses
like Lisp, Pascal, Physics, in UC system
%Advocate collaboration to increase student workplace skills efficiently.
Minimize the alternative forms of software that students must learn
%Help administrators plan for the tradeoffs between alternative
technologies and the rapid pace of technological change
New roles for teachers and learners
%Digital libraries, communication tools, and software products transform
the roles of teachers and learners
%Advances in technology challenge course designers to rethink the needs
of students. New skills for the information workplace must be taught.
Disciplines are often transformed by technology, making it necessary to
devise new goals for learning. Calculus transformed by symbolic
computation, physics transformed by working model, and engineering design
transformed by CAD. Many issues including tradeoff between learning basic
ideas and developing software skills
%Digital libraries allow all users to be contributors to the corpus of
information, raises new issues concerning ownership, review, and
authority in publishing.
%Boundaries between informal conversation and class lecture have
diminished. Social nature of learning more accessible with communication
technologies
%Increased access to software tools and digital information requires
learners to be better critics, more efficient integrators, better social
learners, and more autonomous learners
Appendix A: Costs for student computer access
Startup costs; comparison institution
CPU (replacement each 3-4 years) $3500
CPU furniture $250
software $500
TOTAL $4250/seat
Start up costs; UC campus
CPU, monitor, keyboard, ethernet/friendlynet, memory $3,000
network drop $ 340
furniture + chair $ 300
software $ 500
TOTAL $4,140/seat
Annual cost for computer laboratory with 100 seats: Comparison institution
maintenance $20K-$25K
supplies, including software $25K-$30K
100 computers for student staff $50K
$10K/year for network and security
1.5-2FTEs/room to operate facility, including some support for faculty users
TOTAL ~$110K + 2 FTE to operate 100 seats (250,000) + startup cost (4,000,000).
Operating cost at UC campus: Estimated for 50 seats
Seats
50 seats $207,000
Room
NetWare file server $6,500
Netware software license $4,000
Printer $1,750
LCD Panel and Overhead $3,700
Scanner $1,000
Security alarm installation $3,000
Network, security, printing, projecting $20,000
room preparation, depending on condition $20,000-$50,000
TOTAL To start up a 50 seat facility ~$250,000
Annual
(Open 80-88 hours for general-access or instructional access)
1.5 FTE for troubleshooting, management, scheduling, etc.
2.5 FTE student staff (triple shifted during peak periods); 32 week
academic year $60,000K
Supplies $6K
Network Repair and Maintenance:
first year equipment is under warranty
2-4 years are estimated at $100 per machine/per year, for a total of 70K
Cost comparison: labs versus ownership
(Lab cost: Approximate hourly rate per seat if amortize over 3 years)
32 weeks x 80 hours = 2560 hours x 50 seats = 128000 hours/year x 3
years = 384,000
250,000 startup + 210,000 annual + 210,000 annual salaries = 670,000
670,000/384,000 = $1.75 per hour per seat
If students paid by the hour they would be able to purchase 600 hours per
year (18 hours per week) for about the cost of a fully loaded computer
system ($2500.)
References
Kersteen, Z. A., Linn, M. C., Clancy, M. J., & Hardyck, C. (1988).
Previous experience and the learning of computer programming: The
computer helps those who help themselves. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 4(3), 321-333.
Linn, M. C. & Clancy, M. J. (1992).
The case for case studies of
programming problems. Communications of the ACM, 35(3), 121-132.
Linn, M. C., diSessa, A., Pea, R. D., & Songer, N. B. (1994).
Can
research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science
education? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 7-15.
Rusch, J. & Linn, M. C. (1994).
The Instructional Technology Program:
Models for courseware development. Berkeley Computing &Communications, 4(3), 4-6.