Continue the Drucker discussion Here
March 7, 1997
Dear Edutech Staff:
With all due respect and patience (although not much is available) to
computer scientists, management gurus, and others who are fascinated and
infatuated by the so-called electronic information revolution as a panacea
of higher education, this is pure FAIRYLAND GOBBLEDEEGOOK! It is idiotic,
simplistic, sick, irresponsible, and extremely destructive and
counterproductive for respectable educators to promulgate the idea that
human interaction with electronic technology is a better or more efficient
means of communicating knowledge than by the brute force method of direct
human to human interaction, or by reading REAL books, or by wandering
through REAL libraries. Knowledge, intelligence, and learning involve more
than viewing boob tubes! The very health of human minds and human intellect
depend on extensive human interaction. Only pure CLOSET CASE individuals,
you know, those who belong in institutions of lunacy, prefer talking to TV's
through keyboards and mouses and other mechanical devices.
All self respecting intelligent persons must not tolerate such destructive
attitudes. It is our professional responsibility to speak out and speak
reality.
Dr. Leroy Z. EMKIN, Founder and Co-Director
Computer Aided Structural Engineering Center (GT STRUDL)
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355
U.S.A.
Tel: +1-404-8942260
FAX: +1-404-8948014
E-Mail: leroy.emkin@ce.gatech.edu
>>To: edutech-friends@cc.gatech.edu, gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu
>>From: guzdial@cc.gatech.edu (Mark Guzdial)
>>Subject: Drucker on Higher Education and Technology in Forbes
>>
>>In Forbes this week (March 10, 1997 issue), there is an interesting
>>interview with management guru (he refers to himself as a "social
>>ecologist") Peter Drucker. He had some predictions with respect to higher
>>education and the impact of technology -- pretty gloomy, but they suggest
>>how we ought to consider changing. (Coincidentally, his analogy of the
>>impact of technology to the printed book is the same one that the CoC
>>Distinguished Lecturer today, Alan Kay, often uses -- 4:00 pm today.)
>>
>>===== QUOTE (p. 126-128) =====
>>Education. Now there's a subject that interests everyone today. President
>>Clinton says we should pump more money into the present educational
>>establishment. Drucker says that the current setup is doomed, at least so
>>far as higher education is concerned.
>>
>>"Thirty years from now the big university campuses will be relics.
>>Universities won't survive. It's as large a change as when we first got the
>>printed book.
>>
>>"Do you realize that the cost of higher education has risen as fast as the
>>cost of health care? And for the middle-class family, college education for
>>their children is as much of a necessity as is medical care -- without it
>>the kids have no future.
>>
>>"Such totally uncontrollable expenditures, without any visible improvements
>>in either the content or the quality of education, means that the system is
>>rapidly becoming untenable. Higher education is in deep crisis."
>>
>>Crisis means that things will either get much better or much worse. Things
>>will get much different, Drucker says.
>>
>>"It took more than 200 years (1440 to the late 1600's) for the printed book
>>to create the modern school. It won't take nearly that long for the big
>>change.
>>
>>"Already we are beginning to deliver more lectures and classes off campus
>>via satellite or two-way video at a fraction of the cost. The college won't
>>survive as a residential institution. Today's buildings are hopelessly
>>unsuited and totally unneeded."
>>
>>Drucker, though a lifelong academic, will shed no tears for the present
>>system. "High school graduates should work for at least five years before
>>going on to college," he recommends. "Then it will be more than a
>>prolongation of adolescence."
>>
>>-----------------------
>>Mark Guzdial : Georgia Tech : College of Computing : Atlanta, GA 30332-0280
>>(404) 894-5618 : Fax (404) 894-0673 : guzdial@cc.gatech.edu
>>http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/Faculty/Mark.Guzdial.html
X-Sender: kgramoll@mail.ae.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 23:21:18 -0600
To: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"
Leryo,
Wow, what a point of view. Open your eyes and look around.
There is no way any self respecting educator can deny the vast benefits of electronic media. A student can gain more information faster by using electronically even for the simple task of searching the many networks, vast databases and internet resources then struggling in a library where half the books are lost, misplaced or damaged. Students (and me) can get current research results and the names of the researchers (in addition to the dead inactive book writers) quickly. There is no denying that electronic media is already an efficient method to deliver information and it will only get better. Plus, because it is efficient, it gives students more time to get their noses out of the textbook and have more human interaction with peers and instructors (the one point I agree with you, human interaction is important for human development, and electronic media increases that).
Furthermore, books and libraries cannot give me on demand animations, active illustrations, and simulations. A student can get all that plus what a book deliveries, text and pictures. (and I do not have to wait for the library to open) How can you say a book is better than a screen? They both convey information. They are both extremely useful! Why are you willing to let students bury themselves in books without human interaction, and then say using a computer to learn is a sin? What a hypocrite! Just because I am using and promoting computers to assist students to learn, you have no right to brand me a 'simplistic, sick, irresponsible, and extremely destructive'. I have made great improvements in my students learning with electronic media (and I am not talking about general education courses, but hard core engineering courses!). You yourself are extensively involved in using computers to solve complex structural problems. That in itself is a method of learning. Plus, those programs (STRUDL) probably have extensive on-line help. I am sure you encourage the users to look on the on-line help before calling humans for support. So what right do you have telling me that I am irresponsible in suggesting students view my on-line courseware for help before coming to me for help?
You state yourself that "Knowledge, intelligence, and learning involve more than viewing boob tubes." Yes, like all things in this world, it has its negative side but one can also learn a tremendous amount of information from it. The PBS shows on science, history, and even sports are FAR better than any lecture that I have ever experienced or given.
I have written three CD-ROM works on Statics, Dynamics and Astronomy (Aerospace Engineering) and I will put them up against any textbook in completeness and accuracy. Students using my CDs have the added benefit of animations, sound explanations and simulations (one can build trusses and test them on screen) that books do not have. You cannot do that with your books or lectures!
In engineering (your discipline), through the use of electronic information delivery, a student can learn the equations, have them derived, apply them immediately, change parameters, illustrate hard concepts, animate difficult 3D based principals, and simulate actual problems. This is not a pipe dream. These environments exist and are used in Aerospace Engineering! There is not enough time to struggle with bad lectures (take a poll, and it should not surprise you that over 50% of college lectures are boring, boring and boring.) Give students choices. We do not have the right to force students to listen only to us. They should be able to tune in to any expert around the world and learn which is only possible with electronic media! Effective distance learning is here and we will be out of a job if we try to stop it. In the future, a well written CD/Internet based course using video, simulations, comments from industry experts, equations, animations, simulations (maybe even using STRUDL over the network), text and inter-students communications will receive more use than any lecture and book put together.
We all better get use to the idea that electronic media will play a very important role in all manner of learning. It gives the student the power to control their learning instead of having to wait for a professor to show up for their office hours. Electronic media sets the student free and gives them the time to interact with humans. Besides, without electronic media, we would not be having this delightful discussion.
From: "Arthur R. Murphy"
** Special Offer **
For a limited time, you have an opportunity to purchase an engineering
graduate from Class 1.0 of Drucker Virtual University.
For only $29.95 you can own a brand new engineering graduate complete with
free plastic pocket protector.
Each graduate comes shrink-wrapped in clear plastic and carries a limited
life-time warranty. If defects are found in any graduate, simply call our
1-800-HOT-LINE. And, if our customer service representatives can not fix
the problem over the phone, we'll send out our on-site repair service.
Defective parts will be replaced promptly.
If you act NOW, we will throw in a free set of Ginzu knives and the
original Vegi-Matic slicer.
(If $29.95 is too much, we have a Central American subsidiary, Universidad
de Costa Fecta, which will sell the discount model at $19.95. Not all
graduates of UCF speak English, but all are guaranteed to work for minimum
wage.)
Just fill in your Name, Address, Purchase Order Number, and Graduate Type
requirements below - and click the submit button. We'll ship UPS next day
air, if necessary.
This offer void where prohibited by law.
Seriously, now. If you think real education is too expensive, what is the
cost of ignorance? Can use use the best live pedagogy and the best
technology in creative ways for diverse pathways to excellence?
Arthur R. Murphy
E-mail: gt4834a@prism.gatech.edu
V-mail: 404.894.0562
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/idt/students/amurphy/
http://barrier-free.arch.gatech.edu
X-Sender: mefacfm@prism-pop.prism.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 11:19:24 -0400
To: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"
Leroy:
I am taken aback by your posting - more for its incivility than content.
> Only pure CLOSET CASE individuals,
>you know, those who belong in institutions of lunacy, prefer talking to TV's
>through keyboards and mouses and other mechanical devices.
Who has suggested the preceding? The EduTech Staff to whom your posting
was addressed? I think not; I believe we all know better than that. I
invite you to come to know us better.
>All self respecting intelligent persons must not tolerate such destructive
>attitudes. It is our professional responsibility to speak out and speak
>reality.
Is it reality to ignore the impact of information technology upon our
lives? I think not. Let me offer my own take on self respecting
intelligent people and their responsibilities:
OUR CHALLENGE IS TO EXPLOIT THE OPPORTUNITIES BEING OFFERED BY ADVANCES IN
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE KNOW IS RIGHT AND VALUABLE
IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
Comment?
Cheers.
Farrokh Mistree
P.S. I am on the Steering Committee of EduTech. The views expressed here
are mine alone.
__________________________________________________________
Farrokh Mistree
Professor, Systems Realization Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0405
(404) 894-8412 / 0413 (Office); (404) 894-9342 (Fax); (404) 325-3300 (Home)
X-Sender: ceastman@arch-pop.arch.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: edutech-friends@cc.gatech.edu
From: chuck.eastman@arch.gatech.edu (Chuck Eastman)
Subject: Drucker and the EDUTECH Connection
Cc: fred.allvine@mgt.gatech.edu (Fred Allvine)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:10:29 -0400
I have watched as Edutech has been drawn into a series of email "flames".
Major points:
1. Edutech seems to have ghosts: people seem to see what does not
(now) exist
2. the discussion contributes to changing the focus of
efforts here at Georgia Tech, where the administration is
investing heavily in educational technologies
1.I came here a year ago from UCLA a year ago and Upon arrival, was asked
by Dean Freeman
to chair the Steering Committee, which I have done with pleasure. Since
then, I have been constantly
amazed at the assumptions made about Edutech. I have heard continuous
stories about the Edutech past. Many of them must have been true. However,
the organization has changed. The general support
money has gone. The control and direction made by a single person is gone.
Edutech is a general
research organization committed to the ideas presented below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUTECH MISSION STATEMENT
2/03/97
The EduTech Institute is a multi-disciplinary research organization
committed to enhancing science, math and design education through innovative
uses of technology. Our development efforts are aimed at creating
environments for learning, both embodied and virtual, that reflect our
knowledge of cognition behind learning, complex problem solving and
understanding. While our two target populations are undergraduate
engineering students and middle school science and math students, we are
also committed to finding ways to facilitate life-long learning and learning
across distances for all populations. In general terms, we strive in our
research to bridge the gap between experimental studies of learning and
education and implementation in the messiness of real classrooms and other
learning contexts.
EduTech Philosophy:
Our philosophy in EduTech is comprised of four guiding principles:
[apple] The development of robust understanding occurs in environments which
promote active, student-driven learning. Although such learning can happen
without technological support, we contend that technology can play a role in
facilitating student investigation of and participation in the learning process.
[apple] To become effective and efficient problem solvers, students must learn to
deal with complex and poorly structured problems. Empirically tested
methods and heuristics such as those found in problem-based learning (PBL)
and decision-based design can help students work through open-ended problems
toward goals or solutions. We believe that metacognitive monitoring of
learning activities, goals, planning and strategies can also help students
manage the complexity of open problems.
[apple] Educational innovation must arise from an understanding of both the
internal state of learners and the distribution of cognition across
activities, people and artifacts. Theory from cognitive science and
education promote an understanding of how student[base ']s knowledge structures,
world views, motivations and interpersonal interactions interact with
learning opportunities and environments either to retard or facilitate
learning.
[apple] Teams of classroom practitioners, educators, content areas experts,
researchers trained in cognitive science who understand the cognition of
learning and computer scientists who understand human-computer interaction,
are best suited to create effective electronic environments, tools and
curricula for learning. Through such collaborative effort, we believe that
research is driven by classroom and real-world learning needs but always
informed by theory from cognitive science, AI and education. The
partnership and intellectual synergy of these three integral
components--teachers, researchers and technology specialists-- ensures that
research advances will impact the fields of technology, cognitive science
and education.
Advancing specific education goals:
· Educating students for a lifetime of learning. An information economy
leads to information obsolescence and requires its members to be constantly
engaged in learning. We want to prepare people for effective continuous
learning, learning how to learn. Project-based learning is one way to
achieve this. Traditional goals and methods of education must be re-thought.
· Educating engineers for the workplace of the future. In most workplaces
today and increasingly in the future, complex problem identification and
problem solving are accomplished in teams. Effective engineering education
has embraced the need for students to gain process skills for problem
identification, resource use, planning, decisionmaking and communication. We
at EduTech are committed to making significant contributions regarding the
development of courses that support the development of these skills and the
technologies suited to enhance student learning.
· Providing alternative, dynamic forms of educational assessment, that
offer clearer definition of goals and finer-grained feedback of the
student's current intellectual state. University and most other education
currently relies too much on a single assessment mechanism for evaluating
student progress: the test. We believe that information about knowledge
state can greatly facilitate teaching and learning.
· Developing technologies to support learning without walls. The
opportunity exists to provide rich project-based learning experiences both
within and outside the classroom, without limits based on proximity or time.
Education at all levels can become both dramatically more cost effective and
also more responsive to individual patterns of learning. We expect the
physical domain of higher education to change dramatically over the next
decade.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that Edutech is different from what it seems to be accused of.
2. At this point in time, the facts used to bolster Peter Drucker's
arguments have hit home to almost all
education institutions. Where I came from, the UC system was attempting to
both improve
large undergraduate classes AND reduce their cost, with heavy use of edu
technologies. Prof. Allvine's
references to UNC offers another example. The efforts of Bob McMath and Joe
DiGregorio here are
examples of the growing effort (finally) at Georgia Tech. In the same way
that GT-STRUDL changed
the way that civil engineers work today, the new ways of publishing and
communicating with students
will change the way many of us will teach in the future. I assume it will
also affect how university
faculty consult and teach outside courses. Like most other areas of
activity, computers and electronic
communication open doors for doing things very differently. The gurus make
pronouncements and
exaggerate and things get sorted out as to what works and what doesn't. We
need to know what changes are improvements and what changes worsen the
performance of education. Edutech is
attempting to both provide and develop means to assess what works and based
on these, to
offer examples.
By the way, my first copy of Drucker's remarks came from Pete Jensen, a day
later I got one from Mark Guzdial.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chuck Eastman,
Professor in Colleges of Architecture and Computer Science
Georgia Institute of Technology
Architecture Building
Room 209
Atlanta GA. 30332-0155
(phone) (404) 894-9110
(fax) (404) 894-1629
X-Sender: lemkin@ce.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:25:54 -0500
To: edutech-friends@cc.gatech.edu, gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu,
nelson.baker@ce.gatech.edu (Nelson Baker),
jvanegas@ce.gatech.edu (Jorge Vanegas),
Farrokh Mistree
March 10, 1997
Dear Edutech Staff:
Wow, I did not expect the interpretation that some persons have had to my
comments. Yes, the comments were strong, but they reflect the huge
frustration that many of us are feeling regarding the rapidly growing misuse
of computers by practicing engineers that we are now observing in industry.
It is very difficult to be "civil" when the very safety of the public is
becoming so threatened by computer misuse, and so few are willing to do
anything about it. Someone must stand up and just say NO. We must
seriously reflect upon, and create the means to protect ourselves from, the
mistaken belief that computers somehow are a source of knowledge, or a
source of solutions to engineering problems, or have the necessary
"intelligence" to be trusted. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Computers simply cannot be trusted.
Throughout the world today, engineers are often using computers as a
substitute for knowledge, experience, and thinking. They appear to believe
that the computer enables them to perform engineeirng decision making
regardless of whether or not they themselves have the necessary knowledge or
experience to perform such work in the absence of computers. A rapidly
growing percentage of engineers today believe that expertise in USING
computers in and of itself is a statement of their expertise in performing
engineering. This may sound ridiculous, but nevertheless, it is true!
The problem is that we are placing too much emphasis on automated
technologies at the expense of real knowledge, and this overemphasis has
become an excuse for not investing in "real" learning. In an engineering
educational context, such overemphasis on computers sends the wrong messages
to young persons, i.e., that learning engineering simply involves navigating
oneself through computer generated color pictures and "easy to use" menus.
Exploiting information technologies in the context of engineering design has
a very serious downside, and it is that it becomes a technology that easily
drugs the brain into a false sense of knowledge and power. Before such
automated technologies can be of value to the design engineer, the engineer
must have the knowledge and experience to do the engineering without
computers. Unfortunately, we are becoming so dependent on computers that
engineers are rapidly losing the skills to be able to do any work without
computers.
Have you not experienced the pain and frustration of discussing an
engineering problem with someone whose only experience "solving" engineering
problems is by computer means? Such persons (I will not refer to them as
engineers) can no longer, or perhaps never learned to, do engineering
without computers. They have no idea of the subtle issues related to
modeling, analysis, and design that cannot be addressed by computers. They
think that the world can be analyzed as one big finite element model, and
that the computer can and should automatically model, analyze, design, and
draft the final solution, while the "engineer" should invoice client, make
profit, and hustle new business.
Such computer dependence will cause monumental problems in the future as
fewer and fewer engineers are able to independently (i.e., without
computers) create solutions to engineering problems. As such dependency
grows, who is doing the engineering? Is it the programmer with little or no
knowledge of, or experience with, real world engineering practice, or with a
degree in some field other than engineering? Computers are not, and will
never be, the source of solutions to engineering problems. Such solutions
can only come from human engineers. We are fooling ourselves and our
students if we continue to create a learning environment within which the
primary medium for instruction is the computer, rather than the
knowledgeable and experienced human engineering faculty.
I apologize if I have insulted anyone. That was not my intent. However, my
concern for the growing danger to the public and society in general posed by
the misuse and overuse of computers in engineering requires that these
concerns be expressed whenever and wherever it is suggested or implied that
the computer is an acceptable substitute for human knowledge, experience,
insight, intuition, creativity, independent thinking, and good old fashioned
hard work.
Dr. Leroy Z. EMKIN, Founder and Co-Director
Computer Aided Structural Engineering Center (GT STRUDL)
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355
U.S.A.
Tel: +1-404-8942260
FAX: +1-404-8948014
E-Mail: leroy.emkin@ce.gatech.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:41:57 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: guzdial@cleon.cc.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: edutech-friends@cc.gatech.edu
From: guzdial@cc.gatech.edu (Mark Guzdial)
Subject: Who/What is EduTech
Cc: gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu
Sender: owner-gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu
Precedence: bulk
In recent messages on this mailing list (which has been a wonderful
discussion which I hope continues!), there have been references to an
"EduTech Position" and even a message addressing "EduTech Staff." I would
like to respond to those references by helping to identify who/what EduTech
is.
- First, the respondents in the conversation are not "EduTech staff," but
faculty, staff, and students conducting research in a variety of areas,
where one of the research areas is educational technology. We each
represent our own opinions and are participants in various academic units,
as well as EduTech.
- The concern over an EduTech position or point-of-view is interesting and
somewhat befuddling. No one worries about a Graphics, Visualization, and
Usability (GVU) Center position, or a Packaging Research Center
point-of-view. EduTech is an organization of Tech researchers with a common
interest or focus, not a censorship board.
- EduTech participants do have some common values and goals, namely, those
in the mission statement revision (the beginning of which is attached
below). In short, EduTech stands for research into (and practice with) the
informed use of technology to facilitate effective education.
In the mission statement segment below, you will find support for many of
the themes that have been addressed in the recent discussion:
- That there is a need for educational innovation at Georgia Tech.
- That learning certainly does occur well without technology (as pointed
out by Leroy Emkin), but technology can play an important role.
- That we should take an active role in exploring "learning without walls"
(a term for "distance education" that de-emphasizes the "distance" and
emphasizes the challenge of learning without physical co-location), which
was an important point of Fred Allvine's.
The Mission Statement revision may not reflect the views of everyone
reading this message. The complete document was the result of efforts of
the EduTech Steering Committee (Chuck Eastman (chair), Peter Freeman
(acting director), Farrokh Mistree, Wendy Newstetter, Matthew Realff, Jorge
Vanegas, and myself) and EduTech's Director, Janet Kolodner, to describe
who we are and where we're going. If it does not reflect your views, LET
US KNOW! Let's keep talking and trying to arrive at a shared set of values
and goals. I believe that all of us have a preference not to have
"them-and-us", but to have a larger "us". By creating a larger EduTech
community, we have a better chance to raise the consciousness at Tech about
the need and potential for educational technology.
Mark
========= EduTech Mission Statement Revision (PORTIONS) =============
The EduTech Institute is a multi-disciplinary research organization
committed to enhancing science, math and design education through
innovative uses of technology. Our development efforts are aimed at
creating environments for learning, both embodied and virtual, that
reflect our knowledge of cognition behind learning, complex problem solving
and understanding. While our two target populations are undergraduate
engineering students and middle school science and math students, we are
also committed to finding ways to facilitate life-long learning and
learning across distances for all populations. In general terms, we strive
in our research to bridge the gap between experimental studies of learning
and education and implementation in the messiness of real classrooms and
other learning contexts.
EduTech Philosophy:
Our philosophy in EduTech is comprised of four guiding principles:
* The development of robust understanding occurs in environments
which promote active, student-driven learning. Although such learning can
happen without technological support, we contend that technology can play a
role in facilitating student investigation of and participation in the
learning process.
* To become effective and efficient problem solvers, students must
learn to deal with complex and poorly structured problems. Empirically
tested methods and heuristics such as those found in problem-based learning
(PBL) and decision-based design can help students work through open-ended
problems toward goals or solutions. We believe that metacognitive
monitoring of learning activities, goals, planning and strategies can also
help students manage the complexity of open problems.
* Educational innovation must arise from an understanding of both the
internal state of learners and the distribution of cognition across
activities, people and artifacts. Theory from cognitive science and
education promote an understanding of how student's knowledge structures,
world views, motivations and interpersonal interactions interact with
learning opportunities and environments either to retard or facilitate
learning.
* Teams of classroom practitioners, educators, content areas experts,
researchers trained in cognitive science who understand the cognition of
learning and computer scientists who understand human-computer interaction,
are best suited to create effective electronic environments, tools and
curricula for learning. Through such collaborative effort, we believe that
research is driven by classroom and real-world learning needs but always
informed by theory from cognitive science, AI and education. The
partnership and intellectual synergy of these three integral
components--teachers, researchers and technology specialists-- ensures that
research advances will impact the fields of technology, cognitive science
and education.
Advancing specific education goals:
· Educating students for a lifetime of learning. An information
economy leads to information obsolescence and requires its members to be
constantly engaged in learning. We want to prepare people for effective
continuous learning, learning how to learn. Project-based learning is one
way to achieve this. Traditional goals and methods of education must be
re-thought.
· Educating engineers for the workplace of the future. In most
workplaces today and increasingly in the future, complex problem
identification and problem solving are accomplished in teams. Effective
engineering education has embraced the need for students to gain process
skills for problem identification, resource use, planning, decisionmaking
and communication. We at EduTech are committed to making significant
contributions regarding the development of courses that support the
development of these skills and the technologies suited to enhance student
learning.
· Providing alternative, dynamic forms of educational assessment,
that offer clearer definition of goals and finer-grained feedback of the
student's current intellectual state. University and most other education
currently relies too much on a single assessment mechanism for evaluating
student progress: the test. We believe that information about knowledge
state can greatly facilitate teaching and learning.
· Developing technologies to support learning without walls. The
opportunity exists to provide rich project-based learning experiences both
within and outside the classroom, without limits based on proximity or
time. Education at all levels can become both dramatically more cost
effective and also more responsive to individual patterns of learning. We
expect the physical domain of higher education to change dramatically over
the next decade.
EduTech Today
EduTech is led by Director Janet Kolodner, Professor of Computing and
Cognitive Science. She is advised by a Steering Committee, which has
representatives from across campus, including several schools in the
College of Engineering. Our membership is open across academic unit
boundaries. We work closely with faculty across campus, and with related
educational organizations (such as CETL, CEISMC, and OIT's educational
technology office.)
-----------------------
Mark Guzdial : Georgia Tech : College of Computing : Atlanta, GA 30332-0280
(404) 894-5618 : Fax (404) 894-0673 : guzdial@cc.gatech.edu
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/Faculty/Mark.Guzdial.html
From: mdrake@ibid.library.gatech.edu
X-Sender: mdrake@ibid.library.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:35:39 -0500
To: edutech-friends@cc.library.gatech.edu
Subject: Emkin/Gramoll Debate
Hi Friends: Leroy and Kurt both are right. In a prior position I was
involved with we what we then called an AV Center. This Center did some
instructional development with faculty and others. I learned a few things.
1) each brain on this planet is unique. 2)people learn in different ways.
Some folks learn by reading, others by motion video, other by graphics and
pictures, etc. 3) There is no single "right" way. We should aim to enrich
the learning environment by helping students learn in different ways. The
same material can be presented in several different representations. While
most of us agree that the face to face conversation and discussion between
students and a professor enriches learning we need to recognize that
computers give a valuable tool to do drudge work, information finding,
visualization and experimentation. Miriam Drake
X-Sender: kgramoll@mail.ae.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:33:32 -0600
To: lemkin@ce.gatech.edu
From: Kurt Gramoll
Dear Leroy,
Your point is well taken. But why stop there? Lets outlaw calculators
too. We must make sure that all engineers can add, substract, multiple,
and take the square root of large numbers in their heads before they can be
called engineers. For that matter, we better also do away with books since
they also detract from human interaction and face-to-face learning. Lets
all sit around a big oak tree and learn how to analyze simple beams and
columns by talking to one another and working all out closed form solutions
by hand.
I guess a real engineer does not need GT STRUDL, Mathametica, MathLab, MS
Word (especially this one), Illustrator, GT Beam, Finite Element programs,
CFD programs, MathCad, CAD programs, etc. (Of course, he will never get a
job either, so I guess it doesn't matter.)
Kurt
P.S. I am Professor and not staff.
-Sender: mefacfm@prism-pop.prism.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:53:44 -0500
To: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"
Leroy:
> We must
>seriously reflect upon, and create the means to protect ourselves from, the
>mistaken belief that computers somehow are a source of knowledge, or a
>source of solutions to engineering problems, or have the necessary
>"intelligence" to be trusted. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>Computers simply cannot be trusted.
Surely the same can be said about books. The value of a computer (and what
it represents) depends on the human who is uses it.
>Throughout the world today, engineers are often using computers as a
>substitute for knowledge, experience, and thinking. They appear to believe
>that the computer enables them to perform engineeirng decision making
>regardless of whether or not they themselves have the necessary knowledge or
>experience to perform such work in the absence of computers.
Surely the responsibility for the misuse of the computer cannot to ascribed
to the computer but to the human and the education system.
Farrokh
========
X-Sender: lemkin@ce.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:22:29 -0500
To: "Dr. Kurt Gramoll"
March 11, 1997
Dear Kurt and Farrokh:
Please understand that my comments are limited to my personal experiences
and observations in the use of computers by civil engineers (which are quite
extensive and worldwide in scope), and I admit that I cannot speak with
confidence about the use of computers in other engineering areas. However,
I believe that similar problems exist in all engineering areas.
Now, there is a monumental difference between computers and calculators,
books, and other non-programmable entities/devices, and that is that no
human ever imagined or expected that a book or calculator can perform the
complex calculations and/or decision making that engineers always performed
in pre-computer days. Unfortunately, since the introduction of computers,
and especially since the wildly growing use of PC's, engineers today not
only imagine, but they absolutely expect and demand that computers perform
all such processing.
The reality of engineering today is that the engineer has discovered a very
powerful and convenient way to service clients without the need to expend
huge amounts of resources on learning or understanding the complex details
of engineering modeling, analysis, and design. The "way" is the computer.
The human engineer today behaves in a manner consistent wth the natural
order of the universe, i.e., proceed forward utilizing minimum expenditures
of energy. Engineers today respond to automated technologies by allowing
the computer to do the work, while the engineer is relieved of the
responsibility of worrying about the details.
You made the comment, "I guess a real engineer does not need GT STRUDL,
Mathametica, MathLab, MS Word (especially this one), Illustrator, GT Beam,
Finite Element programs, CFD programs, MathCad, CAD programs, etc. (Of
course, he will never get a job either, so I guess it doesn't matter.)"
Well, you are pretty close to the truth. Real engineers do not need
GTSTRUDL, etc., but rather real engineers can create simplified models of
complex systems, perform appropriate analysis on such simplified models, and
create designs based on such simplified models that can be constructed with
high degrees of confidence that they are safe, reasonably economical, and
functional. Any person that cannot do this is NOT a real engineer.
Although computers can be incredibly valuable tools when used by real
engineers, they are more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction when
used by those who cannot create solutions to problems in the absence of
computers. All you need to do to appreciate this is to reflect on the death
and destruction associated with the recent Kobe, Japan earthquake. Such
infrastructure collapse is nothing when compared to the potential for future
disasters that will occur and will be due to improper engineering performed
by those whose only experience with engineering modeling, analysis and
design is by an exclusive interaction with the computer.
Engineering by computer does not, repeat not, provide meaningful learning
experiences related to the complex theoretical details of modern
engineering. It is far too easy to become sedated by the scope and speed of
computations that modern computers can perform. Who is immune from the
thrill and relief of being able to solve hundreds of thousands of equations
without any significant human effort? Who is immune from the temptation of
allowing such automated technologies to take over the responsibility of
creating "solutions" to engineering problems? Well, only real engineers who
can engineer without computers have such immunity. Real engineers see the
computer for what it really is, and that is that it is merely a highly
imperfect tool capable of processing huge quantities of information
according to highly suspect programming rules defined by generally
inexperienced engineering programmers at the speed of light. And, at the
speed of light, incorrect results can be displayed in the most aesthetically
pleasing form of color stress contours on curved shells under the influence
of dynamic loads when deforming in the inelastic range. Oh, by the way, the
person using the computer to create such results only needs to read the
computer program's user manual, or better still, to just use an easy-to-use
GUI and make appropriate menu picks. The fact is that such persons would
surely benefit if they were to "sit around a big oak tree and learn how to
analyze simple beams and columns by talking to one another and working out
closed form solutions by hand."
I get the feeling that you may believe that I am anti-computer, or unaware
of the wonderful potential future benefits of modern computer information
technology, or disrespectful of the expertise required to utilize such
technology in fabulously creative ways. Well, this is simply not the case.
How can I have such a negative attitutde about computers given my
phenominal success with GTSTRUDL over the past 22 years, and realizing that
the next 22 years will be even more successful for GTSTRUDL? But, even when
recognizing the potential, we cannot be blind to the danger. And no matter
what we as academics think about computers, the nonacademic world of
engineers in practice have created a largely fantasy-based belief system,
and have developed incredibly dangerous expectations, regarding what they
use computers to do for them.
A simple example is the rapidly growing demand and expectation on the part
of a majority of engineering companies throughout the world that CAE/CAD
software fully automate the engineering design process. More and more
engineers today are expecting that they should only be required to define
specifications and conditions for problems solutions, while the CAE/CAD
programs should automatically create the necessary mathematical models,
perform the complex and iterative analysis and design process, and then pass
the resulting design to the drafting function which would create fabrication
and construction drawings. In such an environment, the engineer's only
responsibility would be to define the problem solving requirements and then
to review the final design "solution." This is a prescription for disaster.
Yet, numerous software developers are responding to market demands by
developing and delivering software which is being marketed as having such
capabilities, and the not-so-real engineers are buying the marketing hype,
i.e., they actually believe that such software can do the engineering with
minimal human involvement.
Thus, we are now receiving demands for improvements to software which will
not require knowledge of theoretical details. For example, we often receive
requests from existing and prospective users of GTSTRUDL to create an
environment where the user need not read the user manual. Of course, I can
understand this since the GTSTRUDL User Reference Manual consists of nine
volumes of documentation described the details of what GTSTRUDL does, what
its limitations are, and the theory and assumptions upon which its
calculations are based. However, believe it or not, most engineers today do
not want to be bothered with such details. What they want and are willing
to pay for is a windows interface that permits them to cause information
processing to occur, and to cause results to be displayed in full color
graphics format, with animation if possible, and with pretty formatted
printed display of numerical information. Concerns for whether or not the
correct eigensolution algorithm was used to solve for the frequencies and
mode shapes, or whether or not duplicate eigenvalues can be detected
correctly, or whether or not the theory used to represent the behavior of
nonlinear cable elements is correct, or whether or not analysis results are
sensitive to the geometry of a finite element mesh or the type of element
formulation incorporated into the software, or whether or not the theory for
analyzing partial end moment fixity is correct, etc., etc., etc., are
rarely, if ever, expressed by engineers using computers today.
The attitude of a growing number of engineers today is that they simply do
not have time, or will not be paid, to be concerned about such details.
But, with the computer, they actually believe that they can still deliver
the designs requested of them by their clients. Why not have such idiotic
beliefs???!!! Every time you input the data, and press the button, you get
the result. And, you get the result with almost no expenditure of human energy.
Can you wonder why I am so concerned about the improper use of computers,
and the potential for universities to implicitly endorse such idiotic
attitudes about computers? It should be self evident that I am not
anti-computer. On the contrary, I truly believe that computers have
enormous potential benefit for humankind. But, such benefit will not be
realized if the engineering use of computers continue down its current
destructive path.
What can the engineering university world do to change the current
directions of overdependence on, and gross misuse of, computers? There are
no easy answers. Certainly we have an opportunity to influence young minds
as to the dangers of computers, to the absolute requirement for real
engineers to be able to engineer without computers, to always be sceptical
of computers, to never ever use computer results without extensive
validation, to always assume computer displayed results are wrong until
proven correct by the engineer, to "know" the answer and merely use the
computer to fine tune the solution, to deglorify the computer, to glorify
knowledge and experience, to glorify the need to be thoroughly familiar with
all the details of engineering theory and practice, to avoid working for
employers whose only available opportunities to learn are through computer
use rather than by mentoring by experienced real engineers, etc.
I would really enjoy an opportunity to have lunch with you and continue this
discussion. How about sometime in the near future?
Leroy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Leroy Z. EMKIN, Founder and Co-Director
Computer Aided Structural Engineering Center (GT STRUDL)
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355
U.S.A.
Tel: +1-404-8942260
FAX: +1-404-8948014
E-Mail: leroy.emkin@ce.gatech.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:59:36 -0400
From: chris thompson
Having been a student at Georgia Tech as well as participant in several
educational innovation research project I would like to share my own
personal observations and opinions about the topics listed above.
First of all, I believe the real issue we have to face pertains to the
true mission of Georgia Tech as percieved the upper administration of
this institution. IMHO, education at Georgia Tech is a distraction
rather than a focus for the upper administration. Faculty I have worked
with to introduce new educational tools and techniques have repeatedly
been punished or rebuked by their peers as well as the very top of the
administration. In one case a professor was told that spending time on
education was a severe detriment to one's career. Georgia Tech is about
research, not education. In another case a world respected faculty
member was told to not include references to being named teacher of the
year in tenure materials. Anyone who has time to win a teacher of the
year award is not the kind of faculty member our department wants. Other
educational innovators have been dismissed by their peers as irrelevant
and even ridiculed in front of other students. Why does this continue to
happen at a world class educational institution? How many others have
experienced similar frustration? Why is it that teaching plays only a
very minor role in tenure selection? (I'm talking about reality here)
Earlier comments focused on the immersive experience of the university.
As an undergraduate at GT I was only immersed in one thing - trying to
make the best grades I could. No instructor of mine ever encouraged to
engage in the outside social activities of the university. Quite to the
contrary, it was often suggested that we were not spending enough time
studying. Undergraduates have little or no opportunity to become
involved in research projects or benefit form the millions of dollars
spent on state-of-the-art research facilities. When was the last time GT
built a state-of-the-art learning facility? Why is it that the
administration tried for months to raise student fees to pay for the
refurbishing of the SAC fields destroied by the Olympic experience? Are
students a priority? How many of the faculty members at GT have ever
attended a American Society of Engineering Educators meeting? IEEE
Frontiers in Education? Any sort of educationally related
conference/seminar? Is education a priority for faculty at GT? I do not
raise these questions to accuse anyone or even suggest that something is
worng. I merely think we should honestly examine the situation at GT and
face up to who we are. How can we ever change things if we don't agree
who we want to be?
Edutech has done a wonderful job of raising the awareness of educational
difficulties at Georgia Tech; yet, what percentage of the faculty have
ever taken the time to become involved? Of course there are many
exceptions to the majority rule. I have worked with a number of faculty
who have been willing to buck the system and seriously attempt to change
things at GT for the better. I applaud their efforts.
I wonder if any of the top adminstration are listening?
--
-chris thompson
Georgia Tech Research Institute
ph: 404-894-6143
fx: 404-894-8051
http://mime1.marc.gatech.edu/imb/people/chris.html
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:26:12 -0500
From: Ashwin Ram
This is a very interesting discussion, although we have strayed somewhat
from the original points that Drucker raised. While we're discussing
the use of computers in engineering (and engineering education), I'd
like to point out at least four fundamentally different uses of
computers:
- as a calculation device. A computer can be used to perform complex
calculations, solve problems, optimize, and so on, in the service of
actually performing an engineering task. A friendly user interface
makes it easy for an engineer to input data, hit a button, and obtain a
result. (Many of Leroy's points address this situation.) In this
situation, a computer is simply a very fancy calculator.
- as a programmable tool. A computer can be programmed by the student
(or engineer) to perform complex calculations, solve problems, optimize,
and so on. Nothing comes with the computer except the operating system
and a programming language; the user creates everything from scratch.
This is different from the first case; the program is not a black box
waiting to solve a problem for you, it is something that the student (or
engineer) creates based on his/her deep understanding of the issues
involved. The student (or engineer) solves the problem, not the
computer; the computer is merely a tool.
- as a presentation device. A computer can be used as a multimedia
textbook to display information in multiple forms, such as text,
pictures, sound, animations, video, interactive exercises. (Kurt's work
is an example of this, although he has taken this idea beyond the
textbook stage.) In this situation, a computer is simply a very fancy
textbook. It is much nicer than a textbook, but it is no more or less
dangerous than a good textbook.
- as a communication device. A computer can be used for collaborative
work, distance learning, distance collaboration and communication,
videoconferencing between students and teachers and among colleagues,
and so on. When used properly, it can provide a lot more than e-mail;
it can provide principled tools for computer-supported collaborative
learning. (Mark's work is an example of this.) In this situation, a
computer is a distance-independent communication and
communication-support medium -- in its most basic form, a fancy
telephone (although it can be much more than that because it can provide
scaffolding, as in Mark's work; this is probably a different category,
but I'm intentionally over-simplifying here).
In the recent discussion, I think some of us have been talking past each
other because we are addressing DIFFERENT uses of computers in
engineering (and/or engineering education). Consider the possibilities:
user: engineer, student
use: calculator, programming tool, textbook, telephone
That gives us at least 8 possibilities (user X use). In reality, there
are even more possibilities (e.g., a computer-scaffolded collaboration
environment, as in Mark's work, is clearly more than a "telephone"; a
truly interactive multimedia system is more than a "textbook"; and so
on).
We need to clarify which of these possibilities we are arguing
for/against, because they are quite decidedly different!
Ashwin.
--
Ashwin Ram
Associate Professor, College of Computing
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0280
Phone: (404) 894-4995, 894-3152
Fax: (404) 894-9846, 894-5041
E-mail: ashwin@cc.gatech.edu
Web: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/faculty/ashwin/
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:11:40 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: guzdial@cleon.cc.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"
Leroy,
I think your concern that engineers may not be aware of the limitations and
theoretical assumptions of the models that they use is well-founded, but I
don't think that it is a problem just with engineers nor even just with
computers. For example, it's very easy to apply a given statistical model
or test without first evaluating a data set for the necessary conditions or
assumptions (e.g., equal variance between groups, or a reasonable,
non-bimodal distribution). One can make this mistake even with a table of
values, even without computers or calculators.
I and a CS PhD student, Noel Rappin, are working with Matthew Realff and
Pete Ludovice of Chemical Engineering to try to address this problem *WITH*
computers. We are developing a modeling-and-simulation system called
DEVICE where students construct models of pumping systems. Students use
DEVICE to construct static models to compute features like flow rate for a
given system. After the students complete their model, DEVICE hands the
students' model off to a more powerful computational engine written in
gPROMS which performs a dynamic simulation of their model. The students are
then presented with a set of graphs highlighting the differences. While the
values are often the same (static models work in lots of cases),
differences point out the assumptions implicit in the static model, which
aren't the same as in the dynamic model. By highlighting them, we give
students the opportunity to learn about hidden assumptions in their models.
Our work isn't finished (e.g., there are assumptions in the dynamic model,
too, and we'd like a way to also make those evident), but I think it points
toward a solution for the problem you identify. The issue is helping
students to learn an appropriate problem-solving process (and helping
engineers to use one). An appropriate process is *not* plug everything
into the computer and use the answer. An appropriate process involves
understanding the problem (including "back-of-the-envelope" computations
with simplified models as you describe), testing for assumptions, USING THE
COMPUTER (that step remains), but also verifying results. There are
various research groups who are looking to use the computer *not* just as a
computational engine, but also as a guide for engineering *process* (e.g.,
the n-dim group at Carnegie-Mellon).
My PhD advisor had a saying, "Turn a bug into a feature." Maybe the
computational power of the computer can be harnessed not just to crank out
equations, but also to make evident what assumptions are being made and to
help students (and to remind engineers) to use an appropriate and
responsible problem-solving process.
Mark
-----------------------
Mark Guzdial : Georgia Tech : College of Computing : Atlanta, GA 30332-0280
(404) 894-5618 : Fax (404) 894-0673 : guzdial@cc.gatech.edu
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/Faculty/Mark.Guzdial.html
X-Sender: lemkin@ce.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:30:10 -0500
To: ashwin@cc.gatech.edu
From: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"
March 12, 1997
Ashwin:
Thank you for your clarification. I agree with your assessment that:
>In the recent discussion, I think some of us have been talking past each
>other because we are addressing DIFFERENT uses of computers in
>engineering (and/or engineering education).
You have hit the nail on the head regarding what the discussion is really
all about. My comments have been related to the area of the use of
computers as preprogrammed "calculation devices." But, if the dialog has
helped to identify serious issues regarding computers in engineering
(practice and education), then perhaps we will all be better able to correct
the problems and change the dangerous side of the trends.
Leroy
X-Sender: lemkin@ce.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:38:03 -0500
To: guzdial@cc.gatech.edu (Mark Guzdial)
From: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"
March 12, 1997
Mark:
I fully agree with you comments, and I hope that we as faculty will not make
the mistake of glorifying the computer to the point where the student leaves
with the belief that they need not be concerned with the details since the
computer can do all things. By the way, I even have difficulty restraining
myself when demonstrating the phenominal power of the computer to "solve"
incredibly complex problems. But, I make an EXTRA effort to downplay the
computer in the presence of students, and to continually warn them of the
dangers, and to emphasize that what is of paramount importance is knowledge
of principles, not skill in "surfing the net."
Leroy
To: jt34@prism.gatech.edu
cc: edutech-friends@cc.gatech.edu, gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: Drucker, Edutech, Computers, And GT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 22:50:25 -0500
From: "Gregory Abowd"
Chris,
I usually stand by passively and read a lot of the Ed-Tech mailing
without responding, but I cannot resist respoding to some of the
things you have said in your recent letter.
I'd just like you to know that I am one educator here at Tech who
has put a significant effort into new educational tools (the Classroom
2000 project is by far the biggest of my efforts, but there are other
efforts as well). I have been nominated for (but never received)
College and University Teaching awards for this work. And I have only
ever received very strong encouragement from the College of Computing
faculty and administration for such innovations. And in the past year,
Classroom 2000 has received significant support from the University
administration to continue the work. I don't agree with
you that the picture here at Tech is so bleak. Of course, if it turns
out I am asked to leave Tech in a couple of years, I guess your argument
may in part be supported.
As for the typical attitude of Tech undergrads, I have a short message.
Tech undergrads are phenomenally talented and a good number of them are
eager and willing to break out of the "just want good grades" mold. A
large measure of my own research and education successes here have been
the result of more undergraduates than I can count. Again, I don't think
things are so uniformly bleak. That's why I love it here so much.
Gregory
X-Sender: mcclella@mail.ee.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 07:55:19 -0400
To: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"
This discussion is finally converging to a very interesting point:
how to teach students about the role of computers. On some points, I agree
with Leroy. Especially when he advocates skepticism, and when he says that
one must "know" the answer and use the computer for fine tuning.
The same applies to using mathematics to solve engineering problems,
because we often linearize problems to get solutions. I'm sure that
my Profs worried about us becoming applied mathematicians instead of
real engineers. And I often tell my students in non-computer classes
that "knowing" the answer in rough form before starting is the best way
to solve a problem.
On the other hand, I'm probably not in agreement on the idea of being
able to engineer without computers. At least not if that means restricting
computers in our educational process. Instead we must incorporate
computers into the learning process, so that students understand how (and when)
to exploit the machine as part of their reasoning and thought process.
Right now, I imagine that students do regard the computer with great
respect and trust answers generated by any fancy software simulation.
With our present system, I think we have the following scenario:
A student focuses on math/theory in college and then becomes a new engineer
who goes to work and discovers a wealth of polished software tools available
for practice. A natural inclination would be to say "This is surely
convenient--all these software tools implement exactly what I learned
in school, now I can really be a helluva engineer." I think we must
take the initiative by teaching both math and computers **simultaneously**
in order to drive home the point that computer tools are just one type
of model. And foster the skepticism that all models (math & computers)
have limits.
Finally, I do agree with the time-tested saying that goes something
like "Too err is human, but it takes a computer to make mistakes at
the speed of light."
Nonetheless, the students of the future are going to come to GT with
ever more reliance on computers and with even better computer skills,
so we must adapt our educational methods to transform those skills into
engineering expertise (as we understand/practice it).
.......jim
X-Sender: ccocsst@oit.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:13:40 -0500
To: Jim McClellan
I'm not a part of EduTech and can not speak for them but I think Jim
brought up a good point in his last email that speaks well to the central
role of EduTech on this campus and the concerns voiced by Leroy. Jim stated
that facuty members must ensure that "students understand how (and when) to
exploit the machine as part of their reasoning and thought process". In a
similar supportive and coordinated manner, the work that EduTech undertakes
can play a pivotal role in ensuring that faculty members understand "how
(and when) to exploit the machine as part of their teaching (student
learning) process".
steve
X-Sender: ceastman@arch-pop.arch.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"@cc.gatech.edu,
"Dr. Kurt Gramoll"
To make clear, what I say here is my opinion, and has nothing to
do with Edutech.
I think the position staked out by Leroy Emkin is a crucially important
one for the engineering profession to discuss, as well as all the
design professions and computer scientists. For it addresses the
question of the role of computer tools, and the social responsibility
of the tool makers.
It is different only in detail to other issues of professional
responsibility
of designers, but similar to a massive trend. A friend of mine was an
expert witness in a liability case in Los Angeles at a Portman designed
hotel, that had multiple balconies cantilevered about the inside of a
multi-storey atrium. The hand rails at the edge of the balcony were
similar in design to the barriers used to corral people waiting to go
up to the rotating restaurant on top. A drunken visitor didn't want to wait in
line anymore and jumped over the railings in the corral area, then jumped over
another railing that was the edge of the balcony and fell two stories (I think
he lived.) He sued the architect for negligent design (and won).
This is but one example of the public expecting a product designed
by anyone to be faultless, many other examples exist in the automobile
liability area. The law relies on "normal behavior" and "reasonable
expectations". I think this also applies to computer programs.
Currently, good practices are encoded in building codes. There is
debate whether following the building codes waives a builder's liability
or not. However, most residential buildings are built today using
building codes that use calculations, either precalculated in table form,
or people re-do the calculations.Most of the people doing the table look-ups
or calculations do not understand what they are doing. And you don't
need to be a structural engineer to build anything up to 6 stories in most
states.
In this context, I see a computer code very similar to the written
building code. It is a means to encode best practice in a form of
knowledge that makes it more accessible and usable than the current
written form. Of course the building code lookup tables can't be used
for many cases, and these require full analysis. The boundaries of use
are well specified.
I am fully sympathetic to the point of view of knowledgeable users.
(And I also think that all automobile drivers should know how their car
works, so that they are responsible for how it handles in different
conditions. But the courts and society are against me.) But I also
expect that knowledge will be increasingly encoded in computer
programs. I will predict that certainly within 25 years, any large
structural program on the market will carry its own liability insurance
regarding mis-use, and the first code offering this will drive the others off
the market. Structural codes, energy analysis codes, lighting simulation
codes are all an encapsulation of knowledge, beyond fast calculation,
in a manner equivalent but going beyond existing building codes.
Innovation will still require that some engineers know the fundamentals
of the calculation methods, and that incrementally over time, the methods will
be improved and changed, just as the building codes are done now. This is how
we add to the current knowledge. This
is not much different from Alan Kay last week saying that "in the good old
days",
all real computer scientists wrote their own operating systems and their own
compilers. Sorry folks, that is not how one group of people builds upon
another group's work. I think we need to prepare for the day when our programs
are treated as reliable pieces of software for which it works in all cases
that it is supposed to and degrades gracefully where it cannot. The examples
on the computer controlled nuclear resonance scanning and other medical
applications controlled by computer certainly apply.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chuck Eastman,
Professor in Colleges of Architecture and Computer Science
Georgia Institute of Technology
Architecture Building
Room 209
Atlanta GA. 30332-0155
(phone) (404) 894-9110
(fax) (404) 894-1629
X-Sender: pete@cleon.cc.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 15:40:46 -0500
To: edutech-friends@cc.gatech.edu, gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu
From: pete@cc.gatech.edu (Pete Jensen)
Subject: Dialogue at last ...
Cc: fred.allvine@mgt.gatech.edu, nelson.baker@ce.gatech.edu,
jvanegas@ce.gatech.edu (Jorge Vanegas)
Sender: owner-gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu
Precedence: bulk
Congratulations on creating an explosive and refreshing illustration of the
real value of human communication.
With all of its faults, Email can be a positive force within our society.
For those of you who do not know Professor Leroy Emkin as I do, the
following observations may have value:
* Leroy is Georgia Tech's most distinguished pioneering proponent and
energetic advocate of Computer Aided Engineering Education.
* Leroy's concern, one which we should all share but fail to pursue
with the strength and vigor of Leroy, is that we have created a society
which accepts blindly the outpouring of a computer as though it had been
delivered from an oracle. Whether it be an item in Encarta, a stock market
quote, a rumor, or the size of a structural element, the human user of
data must be prepared to question. Questioning requires analysis of what
is real, based on experience and enquiry.
I am delighted that this discourse has taken place. It heralds a new day
in communication and community at Georgia Tech.
Pete
X-Sender: lemkin@ce.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:25:50 -0500
To: Jim McClellan
March 14, 1997
Hi Jim:
Your response was right on the mark. You might note that my comments
regarding the need for engineers to be able to engineer without computers
did not mean that I support the idea that we should not fully exploit the
real value of computers both in education and practice. Rather, they were
intended to emphasize the need to teach students that it is far more
important to fully understand the details of engineering (i.e., principles,
methods, standards, ethics., etc.) than to understand how to navigate around
a computer screen, and to warn practicing engineers that if they do not know
enough about engineering to be able to engineer in the absence of computers,
then they have no business using computers (i.e., such use under such a
condition would not only be unethical, it would be criminal).
As all competent engineers are aware, a competent computer program does not
make a competent engineer, only a competent engineer should use a competent
computer program. Although this may seem self evident, it sadly is not the
reality of how computers are being used in practice today. Thus the need to
expose the dangers and to create and implement the protections.
Leroy
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:08:00 -0500 (EST)
From: mike@cc.gatech.edu (W. Michael McCracken)
To: jim.mcclellan@ee.gatech.edu, leroy.emkin@ce.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: Use of computers in Engineering
Cc: edutech-friends@cc.gatech.edu, gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu
Sender: owner-gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu
Precedence: bulk
I guess it is time to add a little fuel to the discussion. What Mark stated
is quite important to this disucssion, as well as everyone else's comments.
What Mark was talking about was the need to design software for learning and
to design software for work. Please be careful, I am not advocating that
there always, if ever, be separate designs of software. But, when a
student is learning something as complex as engineering analysis and design,
just sticking them in front of STRUDL for instance, won't necessarily help
them to understand the complexities of the total problem they are dealing
with. We, as Leroy and others have said, have an obligation in making sure
at least our students have a basic understanding of what these fancy things
can do for us, and to me, more importantly what they don't do.
One thing that stands out in Leroy's comments were the apparent desires of
some engineers (practicing or students) to get that quick answer without
considering the other important attributes of the problems they are dealing
with. I am not trying to start a philosophical discussion of society in
making this comment, but it seems to me that one issue here is the
characteristic of our current society of minimal interest in depth and
maximal interest in "the experience". Could it be that Leroy's comments
are not describing the real problem, but some symptoms that we as educators
have to try to defuse?
Mike
Last modified at 12/16/97; 10:49:52 AM
X-Sender: lemkin@ce.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 17:44:47 -0500
To: edutech-friends@cc.gatech.edu, gvu-edtech@cc.gatech.edu,
fred.allvine@mgt.gatech.edu (Fred Allvine),
nelson.baker@ce.gatech.edu (Nelson Baker),
jvanegas@ce.gatech.edu (Jorge Vanegas)
From: "Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin (CASE Center/GTSTRUDL)"
Other Links of Interest
College of Computing | EduTech Institute | GVU Center
Mark Guzdial | CS2390, Modeling and Design | STABLE | MMC - CaMILE | How To Squeak