ChemConf '97, Summer On-Line Conference on Chemical Education,
June 1 to August 1, 1997, Paper #4.
Brian M. Tissue
Department of Chemistry
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0212
tissue@vt.edu
| Abstract | Cost of Science | A Big Crunch in Education? | Information Technology | Benefits of IT | Costs of IT | Curriculum Changes | Summary |
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussions concerning the costs and benefits of incorporating computer and network technology in science education. Some costs are obvious, such as the initial price of hardware and software, and the continual costs of upgrades, maintenance, and technical support. Other costs are less obvious. Some examples include an increasing percentage of instructor time spent on remaining adept at using information technology; changes in the use of classroom and laboratory space; and shifts in the use of classroom, laboratory, and student study time as students learn technology skills rather than science concepts. This paper discusses the cost of using information technology in education as one aspect of a continuing escalation in the cost of education and educational tools. This upward price spiral is analogous to the cost of scientific research, which continually increases due to the need for more and more specialized and expensive laboratory space and instrumentation. The challenge for science educators is to provide a high-quality education in ever-expanding fields, in a regime in which funding for science and education has reached a steady-state condition.
| Abstract | Cost of Science | A Big Crunch in Education? | Information Technology | Benefits of IT | Costs of IT | Curriculum Changes | Summary |
Educational institutions in the U.S. are spending billions of dollars to rapidly increase their use of technology in teaching. This increased spending on educational technology is similar to the exponential growth of science during the last several centuries [1-3]. The scary thing about this analogy is that exponential growth in science, including funding, ended about twenty-five years ago [2]. The next few paragraphs describe the end of exponential growth in scientific research, and the following section relates this situation to science education. These two introductory sections provide a framework for the remainder of the paper to discuss the costs of educational technology, and some of the resulting choices that students and educators face.
My impetus to write this paper arose from books and articles that describe the end of exponential growth in science [1-4]. Goodstein titled his article "The Big Crunch," as an analog to the end of an expanding universe [2]. Since science builds on itself, the cost to "push back the frontiers" continually increases. However, research funding cannot continue to increase at a greater rate than the rate of economic growth. Change in the research enterprise, including much of higher education in the U.S., is therefore inevitable. Science has entered an era that Ziman describes as a "dynamic steady state," where research funding in developed nations holds constant at less than 3% of gross domestic product [3,5,6]. Some of the consequences of this dynamic steady state in science is a greater collectivization of effort (with greater specialization by individuals), insufficient funds to support all worthwhile research proposals [7], and greater accountability of researchers to the funders of their research [3]. New research areas have always continued to appear as others fall by the wayside, but now some research activities cease due only to a lack of funding. The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) is one illustration (casualty) of this new era of science. TFTR experiments required tens of millions of dollars annually to support a large dedicated facility with a staff of hundreds of specialized researchers, technicians, and support personnel. Recent federal budget cuts resulted in the loss of 240 jobs and the reactor experiments ceased in April 1997 [8].
The changes of this new era allow research to progress, at least in some fields, but also fundamentally alter the research enterprise in ways that many researchers consider detrimental: (1) Because of restricted resources, researchers spend a much greater percentage of their time on acquiring and justifying research funding. A faculty reward system based on publications, funding, and research reputation also leads to even greater specialization in research, which is counter to the call for a broader educational experience for graduates who go to industry. (2) Collectivization can create sets of "have" and "have-not" classes in academia as: research center directors, graduate faculty, research scientists, teaching faculty, and instructors; with many of the lower ranks having only temporary contracts. (3) The increased cost of research leads governments, institutions, and research groups to choose to explore the same "strategic" or "short-term" research areas based on expected economic pay-off, and novel fundamental research areas can go unfunded. (Should I even mention the relative funding levels between the physical and social sciences?) The cost factor also forces university science departments to not fill open positions due to a lack of start-up funds and space for new faculty. As a side note, the increasing cost of research might explain the significant downsizing in the chemical industry recently. From a strictly economic viewpoint, the increasing cost of research for a given return probably looked like a bad investment. One contradiction of corporate down-sizing is that total non-federal support for R&D has been steadily increasing since 1980 [5].
| Abstract | Cost of Science | A Big Crunch in Education? | Information Technology | Benefits of IT | Costs of IT | Curriculum Changes | Summary |
Not stressed in the above-mentioned writings is an analogous discussion of the situation for science education. (No doubt many educators feel that they have always worked in a "Big Crunch" economic model.) The signs of education entering a similar "dynamic steady state" are evident in the restructuring and reinventing that is occurring at all levels: in individual departments, single schools, universities, school districts, and state and national educational systems [9-12]. In the United States, where a significant proportion of scientific research is funded through higher education, much of the department-level restructuring is primarily driven by consolidation in research and graduate education. Other evidence indicative of fundamental changes in education include decreasing financial support from state governments; increasing requirements for accountability, such as post-tenure review and national education standards; increasing demands to justify funding and funding increases, e.g., caps on tuition increases; and calls to improve the cost-effectiveness of education using technology [13,14].
Many writers and committees have addressed the challenges facing education: increasing enrollment [15], escalating cost [15], and deteriorating infrastructure [16,17]. However, I have not found anything that frames these problems in the long-term view that education, especially science education, will always become more and more specialized and expensive. By education in the previous statement I refer to the current model of a 4-year baccalaureate education, with the premise that a graduate should be able to succeed in industry, or in graduate or professional school. The cost of education could certainly be spread out in other models of education. Students can get degrees stepwise; or "in-service" while they are working; and major reforms and completely new models of education are possible and have been proposed [18,19]. However, even with new educational models, workplace trends suggest that a greater percentage of an individual's time in the future will be spent on education, training, and retraining.
The following discussion concentrates on the costs and benefits of incorporating information technology into science education. I will try to frame the current frenzy to use information technology as one aspect of the continuing escalation in the cost of science and education. I do not agree with the argument that information technology will be a one-time cost to upgrade infrastructure, or that it will lead to increased productivity or lower costs in education [20]. One analysis showing increased cost effectiveness appears to me to achieve the benefits by switching from a lecture to a studio teaching model, which could just as well be implemented without expensive information technology [14]. If anything, I think that the increasing use of information technology has accelerated the upward trend in the cost of education. One caveat of the following discussion is that it is biased from my perspective from a large research university with a mostly residential student population. Many of the cost/benefit discussions will vary for different scale situations, e.g., a small 4-year college compared to a large university; or for different institutional missions, e.g., a vocational program versus a liberal arts program. However, I believe that the cost trend is upward in all situations.
| Abstract | Cost of Science | A Big Crunch in Education? | Information Technology | Benefits of IT | Costs of IT | Curriculum Changes | Summary |
Defining information technology, and its applications in a science curriculum, is not straightforward. For this paper I will mostly refer to areas in which computer software, network technology, or Internet resources are replacing or adding to traditional teaching and learning tasks. A very important category included here is the use of "business" software, such as word processors and spreadsheets, in educational settings. Other examples include communications (virtual office hours, on-line lecture notes), on-line literature research, computer-based homework (software replaces the human grader), and computer-assisted learning software (textbook enhancement). In these examples, technology is used to do something differently (and presumably better) than the way in which it was done previously. I do not include in this paper advances such as molecular modeling software, which I view as a "new" tool in research and education. Introducing molecular modeling in a course requires "fitting in" new material, and is analogous to introducing a new subject or a new instrument in a course.
The comparison between introducing information technology and new instrumentation into a chemistry course is useful. New tools or methods replace old tools because they are faster, or more sensitive, or more powerful. Instrumental analytical methods; such as nuclear-magnetic-resonance (NMR), infrared-absorption, atomic-absorption, and atomic-emission spectroscopy; have largely replaced qualitative chemical analytical methods. In the chemistry curriculum, qualitative analysis courses have been dropped or replaced by courses in organic-structure identification or instrumental analysis. These changes are the natural evolution of a curriculum, and incorporate the modern tools of working chemists into undergraduate courses. However, a 4-year degree cannot include use of all of the tools used by working scientists in a discipline. Instructors pick and choose instrumental tools based on coverage of topics, wide-spread use in industry, affordability, and personal preferences.
Using new information technology is similar to incorporating new instrumentation into a course, but with some subtle differences. Information technology does not really replace something in the curriculum in the same way in which instrumental methods replaced qualitative wet-chemical methods. Using information technology often requires replacing instruction in the course subject with technology instruction. It also often duplicates existing teaching activities. Posting assignments, answer keys, lecture notes, etc. on a Web page is done in addition to providing the same information on a bulletin board or in class. E-mail is a convenient means of communication, especially for a student who walks across campus or drives across town only to find his or her instructor's office empty. However, I find e-mail much less effective than face-to-face communication when trying to convey abstract concepts. My second reply to a student's question is always to come to my office.
A major challenge in teaching science is to use modern instrumentation and tools, without losing the important underlying principles and concepts. Using a spreadsheet has distinct advantages for efficiently manipulating data, but students do not necessarily understand their data better by plotting it in a spreadsheet instead of on graph paper. To add new topics in a course or curriculum usually requires removing existing components. At the current time, adding information technology to the science curriculum requires dropping or reducing instruction in something else. Eventually entering freshman will have basic computer expertise similar to their current ability to use electronic calculators. However, some new level of technology will take the place of the personal computer and current software at the leading edge of technology. The common student request "Show me how to do that on my calculator." will become "Show me how to do that on my laptop/workstation/wrist-mounted supercomputer."
| Abstract | Cost of Science | A Big Crunch in Education? | Information Technology | Benefits of IT | Costs of IT | Curriculum Changes | Summary |
There is no shortage of authors and organizations that either sound alarm bells concerning information technology [21-24], or vigorously promote information technology [12,25,26]. Various technologies have been promoted over the last 100 years to revolutionize education: the magic lantern, slide projector, movie projector, overhead projector, television monitor, video cassette or videodisc players, personal computer, and the latest being the Internet [23,27]. Although technological advances might revolutionize the tools that are available with which to teach, none of these technologies have yet to revolutionize the dialog and thinking that is necessary in teaching and learning [28]. Information technology can be a useful tool, and the ability to use it is becoming a required skill in the workforce. However, IT is only a tool that must be used properly in an appropriate learning environment to be effective in whatever task it is applied [12,29].
The two most common benefits cited for using computers and the Internet in education are that they improve learning, and that they improve the cost effectiveness of education. Some specific examples are categorized in the following list. The first three examples primarily fall into the improved learning category, and the rest are primarily increased productivity benefits (there is some overlap in these categories).
Common rationales to incorporate information technology in education:
I think that the first item in this list is true, but educational software has a very high development cost. A common argument is that buying the tools or building the infrastructure will drive development of effective educational courseware. As television programming demonstrates so well, this prediction has not come true. The use of an educational tool must also fit into an overall learning structure to be effective [28,29,31]. In my opinion the third item in this list is the most pressing rationale for using information technology. I think that a curriculum must incorporate modern information technology tools in the same way that chemistry courses incorporated modern instrumentation. I can't imagine letting a B.S. graduate out the door who couldn't use a buret, an IR spectrometer, a computer, or a spreadsheet program. Many of the other items in this list depend on institution mission. As already stated, I do not think there will be any large cost savings by using information technology in education [32]. We might be able to teach better, but not cheaper, and, as Ziman argues, at some point we hit a funding ceiling that requires fundamental change in the way in which we do things.
| Abstract | Cost of Science | A Big Crunch in Education? | Information Technology | Benefits of IT | Costs of IT | Curriculum Changes | Summary |
Some costs of incorporating information technology in education are obvious and can be put in a balance sheet. These types of expenses are included in the first list below. Other costs are more difficult to quantify and I've divided them into changes in space and time (my apologies to physicists).
Monetary Costs
The capital cost of information technology is the tip of the iceberg; and the real costs come in training, maintenance, and support. The life-cycle cost of owning personal computers in a distributed environment (as opposed to mainframe computing) is 10-20 times the initial price of the computers. This amount has approximately doubled between 1987 and 1993 (see the Figure) [33].
Obsolete computers are replaced with more powerful computers, which include more sophisticated peripherals and network connections. These computers, software, and the associated infrastructure require a greater level of training to use and maintain. This situation is very similar to chemical instrumentation. Replacing an electromagnet-based 60-MHz NMR spectrometer with a superconducting 300-MHz spectrometer provides greater capabilities, at the cost of greater complexity and higher maintenance cost. The initial capital expense of instrumentation and computers (and consumer goods) continues to decrease, and teaching tools do not require all of the bells and whistles of top-of-the-line research tools. Nevertheless, the overall cost continually increases due to requirements for additional specialized space, technical expertise, and support staff (or faculty time) to house and maintain the latest generation of scientific and information technology. An analogous trend occurs in health care, in which the increasing use of technology makes health care more and more expensive.
Public school systems in the U.S. are currently spending $4,100,000,000 on hardware and software [34]. A detailed study of K-12 education estimates that a reasonable target spending for technology should be approximately $300/student, compared to $70/student now being spent [35]. A 1996 forecast predicts spending on educational technology by K-12 and higher education to rise from $6x109 to $14x109 by the year 2000 [36]. As a specific example in higher education, Virginia Tech, which has 25,000 total students, is spending $10-million over four years in an Instructional Development Initiative for classroom and faculty infrastructure. Computer projection equipment is being installed in classrooms, and approximately 1500 faculty members are receiving information technology training and a computer. Once all faculty members complete the course, another 4-year cycle will begin. The dollar amount of this initiative does not include money spent by individual colleges, departments, and research groups for information technology for educational use. Oberlin quotes a total expenditure of $40-million on information technology for a Research-I university of 25,000 students [33]. This figure translates to $1,600 per student per year, and does not include the money spent by individual students who can afford their own personal computers, peripherals, and software. Whether purchased with government support, tuition, student fees, or personal funds, the use of information technology is increasing the cost of education.
Space Costs
There are obvious installation and renovation costs when adding the information technology infrastructure to a campus, and I categorized these expenses as monetary costs. The two costs listed here are difficult to quantify in monetary terms, and concern space additions or changes in space utilization. The physical size of educational institutions has increased rapidly during the last 50 years, and much of this expansion has been in specialized teaching and research space [1]. The continuous addition of specialized space and equipment is one of Ziman's arguments for the inevitable ever-increasing cost and specialization of science [3]. In chemistry, general bench space has evolved to specialized inorganic, organic, physical, instrumental, and biochemical laboratory space. Computer space is just one more type of specialized space.
I'm not implying that renovations are bad, they are sorely needed. My point is that adding information technology to the mix increases the cost both in terms of requiring additional specialized space, and increasing the complexity of the infrastructure of an educational institution. In a new era of limited resources, educational institutions are looking for new ways to pay for the physical infrastructure built during a period of rapid growth (a government-funded Ponzi scheme?). The large back-log in infrastructure renovations [16,17] makes adding even more specialized space throughout an institution rather illogical unless it is accompanied with an overall space-utilization plan.
Time Costs
I now maintain Websites with lecture notes, answer keys, and other information for the classes I teach. Besides the initial time to learn HTML; maintaining the on-line material adds one more thing to an already long list of: developing, updating, and presenting lectures; holding help sessions and office hours; grading; and class administration. Faculty members are requested to use information technology by students for the convenience, and by administrators to justify the expenditures on the technology. In many cases, a square peg is being pounded into a round hole. It makes sense to have my 20-30 seniors in instrumental analysis learn to use a spreadsheet during the first week of lab. It doesn’t make sense to set up an on-line newsgroup or chat server for these students, since they work in groups in the laboratory each week. Whether or not it makes sense for me to maintain a Website to post lecture notes and other information for my general chemistry class I don’t know.
There are also nebulous costs, such as faculty time to plan or maintain infrastructure, which an anecdote illustrates: A computer projection display in a classroom could not be used to present lectures because the projector was not bright enough to use simultaneously with the overhead fluorescent lights. Physical plant had a policy of not installing incandescent lamps on dimmer switches due to the increased maintenance cost. Using the computer display required turning off the fluorescent lights, making it impossible for students to take notes. The $10,000+ investment for the projector, computer, and installation increased neither the effectiveness nor efficiency of education. These situations do eventually get rectified, but sometimes only after a large amount of wasted personnel time.
Students also have only a finite amount of time to study. Learning is inherently inefficient in any model of productivity. The same activity is done over and over until, hopefully, a concept is at least partially understood. If students now take the time to learn an application program, what are they not studying that students used to study? As I mentioned when defining information technology, IT can greatly increase the efficiency of finding information, manipulating data, and visualizing equations. Does the increased efficiency of using technology make up for the extra time taken in learning the technological tools? Are students in the information age learning more, less, or the same amount of science as students did 20 years ago? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think that these are important questions for educators to ask before requiring students to use information technology in specific courses.
| Abstract | Cost of Science | A Big Crunch in Education? | Information Technology | Benefits of IT | Costs of IT | Curriculum Changes | Summary |
I will not attempt to address how information technology affects student learning in a few paragraphs. I'm not even sure if incorporation of information technology in science education is primarily a cost or a benefit. I think it is inevitable that information technology will become much more pervasive in education. For better or worse, I also think that information technology will affect what and how students learn. Many of these changes can be considered in terms of the natural evolution of a curriculum to equip students with the tools and skills that they will need in their future careers. I think the appropriate questions to ask are where and how should we use information technology, and how do we pay for it?
A panel of faculty members in the humanities, math, and sciences, who have been using technology in their courses for a number of years, reached a general consensus that using technology was more expensive (time- and money-wise), but that it was worth the cost [Virginia Tech College of Arts and Sciences Roundtable Discussion, Oct. 15, 1996]. In my opinion, the best case for using computer technology was made by a faculty member from the music department. Computer technology could convey annotated experiential material, e.g., a symphony, that was not possible otherwise. I've heard conflicting comments about a math initiative to teach calculus in computer classrooms, e.g., "the computer does not hurt learning," and "the students are learning the computer program and not calculus."
On the positive side, technology enhances continuing education, which is becoming more important for a rapidly changing technological workforce. Students and working professionals can find resources and learn on their own. As the amount of knowledge grows (old theories are discarded but the total amount of accepted knowledge continues to grow), it is impossible to master a field. Literacy in a subject becomes the understanding of basic principles, the ability to apply those principles in new contexts, and the ability to learn independently. Technology can be an effective tool if integrated appropriately in this evolving learning environment. However, setting up a network-based communication system is no more effective than reserving a room and telling students to show up. Developing and implementing good cooperative learning material can be effective regardless of the delivery mechanism, in-person or electronic. In some situations, such as a nonresidential campus, electronic delivery will be the most appropriate or even the only choice. In my own experience with internet-based prelab assignments, I found that the largest obstacles in using the technology were the conditioning, attitudes, and behavior of the students and teaching assistants. Not only did the students not want to take responsibility for their own preparation before lab, but the teaching assistants reinforced their passive behavior by providing cookbook instructions to the students at every stage of an experiment. Helping students to develop good learning attitudes must precede expecting students to be able to use new information technology tools effectively and efficiently.
On the negative side, "computer-enhanced" classrooms put a computer between the student and the instructor, and can make dialog more difficult [28]. Computer teaching tools can mimic entertainment, fostering a passive mode of learning and short attention span. They can also detract from the reflective thinking needed to develop an understanding of abstract concepts. (Many of us take years to still not understand some topics.) Learning how to access information is not the same as understanding that information, and understanding a presentation is not the same as understanding the concept being demonstrated. Which is the more effective and efficient use of one hour of time: studying three textbook pages, or finding and viewing 60 Web pages?
| Abstract | Cost of Science | A Big Crunch in Education? | Information Technology | Benefits of IT | Costs of IT | Curriculum Changes | Summary |
This paper focused on the costs of incorporating information technology into education, which frames the discussion in somewhat of a negative light. I did not intend to take a pessimistic view, but rather to approach the subject from Ziman’s argument that the continuous increase in sophistication and cost of science results in greater specialization and other consequences [3]. There are strong indicators that education has reached a steady-state funding regime, analogous to the situation in scientific research. The long-term question becomes: How do we pay for education and educational tools, which continue to increase in sophistication and cost, in an era of steady-state funding? I do not offer any specific solutions, evolution of educational institutions will depend on their individual missions and student populations. As in research, I think we can expect to see more specialization in educational systems and institutions. Many science departments are narrowing the research areas in which they offer graduate degrees. Institutions will probably develop specialized degrees and continuing-education programs, with less of a one-degree-fits-all approach. This trend is evident in technological programs aimed at providing industrially relevant training [39,40], and in calls for increased utilization of technical training programs in community-college systems. Specialization of faculty is taking place within many university science departments. Teaching-only instructors and faculty are carrying more and more of the teaching load in lower-level courses. This specialization can result in smaller class sizes with dedicated educators. On the other hand, if these positions are filled with temporary faculty to maximize return-on-investment of research faculty, then the educational experience for students is unlikely to be the best.
In the short-term, we come back to the question of how should universities, colleges, departments, and individuals spend their money? Implementing information technology requires some strategic planning (at least as much as possible). Oberlin makes a strong case for planning on incremental change, and the need for institutions to reallocate some portion of their annual budgets for information technology [32,33]. Again, the specific choices that institutions, departments, and individual make will depend on institution mission and student population. However, any plan must recognize the continuing upward trend in the cost of education.
It’s fine to rationalize changes and plan strategies for the big picture, but what about the individual choices that educators and students must make about how they spend their time? As categorized in this paper as time costs, incorporating and using information technology in education requires faculty time. I am not aware of any institutions that are changing the basis of their faculty reward system to compensate for these shifts in how faculty members allocate their time. Students also have only a finite amount of time. Introducing the latest flashy technology will not improve the performance of students who are not developing adequate study and work skills, and might even make the situation worse by giving students the perception that they are studying. Two of the major themes from a recent workshop on student success were remediating poor math, problem-solving, and work skills; and tracking students’ time-on-task [41]. The quality of a textbook, lecture, multimedia instructional program, or on-line resource is irrelevant if a student doesn’t or can’t take advantage of the learning opportunity.
Understanding science requires thinking, dialog, and a balance of experiential and reflective learning experiences. Computer and network technology can be valuable teaching tools when applied to an appropriate task in an effective learning environment. These information technologies are also tools that graduates will be required to use effectively in their future careers. The continued expansion of science and scientific tools results in inevitable changes for science education. The challenge for science educators is to provide a high-quality education in ever-expanding fields, in a regime in which funding for science and education has reached a steady-state condition.
"As to science itself, it can only grow." Galileo, 1632.
This work was supported by an NSF Career Grant (CHE-9502460) and a Research Corporation Cottrell Scholars Award. I am grateful to Profs. Henry Bauer and Theresa Zielinski for their valuable comments.
Note: Since this paper is being presented on-line, I've used extensive on-line references. I did not include many relevant URLs that I found, especially of restructuring plans and book reviews, because of the uncertainty of the documents being present for an extended time. See reference [9] to search for keywords or book names.
Return to: ChemConf '97, Summer On-Line Conference on Chemical Education,
June 1 to August 1, 1997.
http://www.chem.vt.edu/archive/chemconf97/paper04.html, final version 5/12/97.
Copyright © 1997 by Brian M. Tissue, all rights reserved.