Mf

Technology and Education: Seeking a Rational Middle Ground ...continued

While | have not had million-dollar
budgets, I have been involved with
projects that expended $150,000 to
$250,000 to develop two to three hours
of training materials. These budgets do
not even include the additional costs for
spacc, salaries, supervision, manpower
time, and the like.

It would be an interesting experiment
for a faculty member, in any public
educational institution, to approach his
or her president or superintendent and
suggest the expenditure of $150,000 on
the development of two or three hours
worth of training materials, regardless
of the number of students involved.

In the private sector, the use of technol-
ogy is not always for the development
of uraining at lower per hour costs.
Somctimes, the goal is to develop train-
ing programs, which provide a high de-
gree of training consistency, in various
locations, and over extended periods of
time, for legal or other reasons. Some-
limes, the goal is to provide training in
a highly confidential manner. Some-

times, the goal is to provide consistent
and precise training in situations where
even slight deviations can result in dis-
asters. (The health sciences and the
aviation industry are two such ex-
amples.)

Unquestionably, some disasters have
been perpetrated in the name of profit,
just as some disasters have been per-
petrated in the name of education. Un-
restrained technocracy can be a
dangerous thing. The tools of technol-
ogy are seductive. These bright, shiny
toys with their flashing lights and digi-
tal displays are more than compelling.
They also bring power to those who
control them. But for the most part,
such deviations and disasters can be
controlled by answering two simple
questions: What is the cost? What is the
bencfit?

The direction is clear; an increase in the
use of technology in education is in-
evitable. On the one side, the
promoters, hucksters, and salespeople
will continue to overstate their cases,

and many administratots will continue
to promote the use of shiny toys so that
they have something to show visiting
dignitaries. On the other side, those
who fear the unknown will, unfor-
tunately, continue to lash out blindly.

But technology will still come. The
only question that remains is: How will
that technology be used and controlled?
Those who support public education
must develop a clear and precise pur-
pose. They must work toward the
development of some type of measur-
ing stick (like profit in the private sec-
tor) on which to base their educational
decisions, including decisions relating
to the use of technology. If that measur-
ing stick can be found in public educa-
tion, the result will be the rational
middle ground in the use of technology
that all of us seek.

Submitted by

Robert N. Christie, President,
Christie Communications,

#210, 11738 Kingsway Avenue,
Edmonton, Alberta (403)45 11-4260.

 

A number of amendments to the
Copyright Act, Bill C-60, have
reccived Royal Assent. The amended
Copyright Act will strictly protect the
rights of creators. It also includes
protection for choreographic works and
computer programs, abolishes the com-
pulsory license for second recordings
of musical works, introduces the right
of public exhibition of artistic works,
and includes antipiracy provisions.

Technological Applications Committee

Amendments to the Copyright Act’s
“fair dealing" provisions, which will
suggest exemptions for certain types of
users, could be introduced as early as
the fall of 1988.

Bill C-60 represents the first major
revision to the 1924 Copyright Act.
One of the bill’s major thrusts is toward
the formation of collectives that repre-
sent the interests of specific groups of

artists. The collectives will be per-
mitted to approach the provincial
governments to negotiate licenses for
the use of the copyrighted works that
fall within their jurisdictions. The col-
lectives will then distribute the royal-
ties to their members. The actual
operating guidelines for these collec-
tives have not yet been formalized.

Fall, 1988