Why Computers Should Replace Teachers - Research Proposal Example

Name : xxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxx Title : Computers should replace Teachers Institution : xxxxxxx @2010 Computers should replace Teachers Introduction The aim of this paper is to critically assess and conclude whether computers should replace teachers. The pros and cons of using a teacher will be laid out versus the pros and cons of using the computer. Aims and Objectives The main objectives here therefore are to establish that the teacher is vital in the learning process and that the computer cannot effectively replace a teacher in any learning mode. That computer based methods are available but their shortcomings are a strong point against computers replacing teachers in the learning processes. A conclusion will then be drawn based on the findings. It is important to note that the computer as a tool has both strong and weak points. Similarly the teacher as a human has strong and weak points (Hart 2006). Body Man versus machine has been a big debate for a long time. It’s on this basis that we are trying to build a case for or against computers replacing teachers. This study attempts to look at this statement in light of the learning process in our schools. The learning process is vital to every human(Gibson, Rigby & Tamsitt 2003). Modes of learning will however vary, but one always vital mode involves a teacher student setup. With increasing computer usage it is becoming evident that the once traditional roles are being taken over by computers. “Online learning or e- learning as is sometimes referred to is increasingly employing computer technology to support the process” (Kaplan 2006, p.101). The computer is core in this process. Special rooms are used where capture cameras are mounted. These cameras being digital in nature will then transmit these images to computer screen. If a number of computers are interconnected the images are multicast to different computer users who may be in one location or dispersed. By so doing the different terminals have synchronized images which could include lecture / learning sessions (Rusell 2006). During any learning process a teacher becomes a vital contributor and player. A teacher in this case is a human being trained in particular area of application and thus qualified to offer services that will relate to some definite and dependable decisions during the learning process. All the teaching activities are directed to a learner who solely depends on the teacher to gain the much needed knowledge. Looking at this it can be understood that unlike a machine or robot the teacher can intuitively gauge and dictate the mood of the learning process and can effectively adjust to improve the overall learning process. A computer that could nearly equal this task must be running highly artificial intelligence software. The program (artificial intelligence) can be developed over a period of time at near prohibitive costs. With this kind of setup still the computer may be limited in a variety of areas of use. Though E- Learning or online learning is cautiously being adopted the convenience of the conventionally based school systems offering a face to face mode of learning that still outweigh the e-learning a clear indication that computers are yet to replace teachers (Hall 2009). However in the long run the likely advantages of e-learning over traditional conventional face to face interaction in schools will be realized (Keith 2007). During the learning process complex thought patterns are established and perfected over time. These can then be taught to a learner who then in similar situations may employ almost the same thought patterns. However all these processes cannot happen in a programmed and isolated environment such as one where the computer is being employed (Philips 2010). Computers have been seen to replace simple human executable procedures that are considered repetitive. The advantage these computers have over humans has been their speed and efficiency in the execution of these tasks. However computers may not be totally relied upon to execute the processes because of imminent breakdowns resulting in catastrophic results. We are well aware of computer systems which malfunctioned just because of a simple infusion into the system like maybe a full stop inside the execution code resulting into system crashes that grounded whole business enterprises (Newhouse 1999). Using another example to critically analyze the role of the computer and whether it can effectively replace human beings in the learning and processing environments, we can mention the autopilot procedure in the airplanes today. We realize that the once traditional processes that were carried out by humans are ingrained into automated processes that are executed by computer programs running on board airplanes. We however understand that the human pilot is always at hand to override some decisions during this processing. While we can map this onto a learning process we clearly see that the computer in the autopilot scenario does not replace the human pilot but just picks out the repetitive procedures and perfects the processing or execution of these repetitive tasks. The computer systems in this case and others including learning will however offer no room for alternative or ad-hoc processes even in the event that they should be urgently needed. This can affect the learning process making them unsuitable to replace a teacher (Dobbs 2006). While learning we sometimes adjust through such complex human to human exchanges that are at times un-programmable thereby making the computer as a tool unsuitable to completely taking over and handling the learning process. A teacher can quickly discover and adjust to his or her student’s learning curve. By so doing the teacher dictates what the learner requires and when they require it especially so in terms of information or facts. This may be a near impossible task for a computer to carry out however complex the computer program may be (Turner 2007). Learning also involves response and feedback. Sometimes the learner’s response is erratic and unplanned and can only be well interpreted by a human. To effectively have a program up and running to decipher all the unplanned and erratic feedback would mean a complex and very expensive computer program (Russell 2005). The argument so far advanced covers the interaction aspects in any learning mode. However with this goes other aspects such as the legal and social perspectives involved. There may arise legal obstacles while trying to replace the teacher with the computer. Consider for instance a situation where based on the programmed information a learner in the computer learning set up takes a decision that has legally bidding implications. Who may stand in as the typical respondent in the event of a legal tussle, would it be the computer? (Whiteside 2009). A more typical scenario supporting the unsuitability of computers in replacing teachers is when we consider the infamous millennium bug that caused all non year 2000 compliant systems to malfunction. Firms that involved people and monetary assets went under due to a computer error. What would be the legal implications and who would take responsibility if the law were to take its cause, would it be the firm that runs the malfunctioned computer system or the firm that developed this system? (Ingvarsson & Hanley 2010, p.1). Such are the questions that make the over-reliance on computers in any process a legal risk. We are also aware of planes that have crashed and in the event lives are lost because of malfunctioning on board systems on the other hand compensation procedures have become legal tussles involving the airline and the manufacturers. Redundancy has been shown as one of the results of computer employment and usage and this has continually been a social challenge. The complexity of these issues further increase when we consider the diverse languages the learners may be drawn from. Whereas a teacher can easily adjust to these variations and effectively communicate, the computer has limited or no capacity to capture this observation. The language translation processes will always involve much and take a long time as compared to a teacher who is fluent in more than one language (Westfall 2008). Needless to say the conventional school based approach of schooling where there is face to face interaction provides for opportunities for the teacher to be able to notice any student impairments such as auditory or visual and effectively adjust to impart the necessary knowledge. This seems a tall order when we are using a computer instead of a teacher to effect the learning process. Educators are pointing to the fact that for computers to effectively replace the teacher in the usual conventional school based setup, then critical changes must be effected in the classroom and learning environment, a process which is likely to take a considerable amount of time before its actual realization (Abernathy 1997). Conclusion In conclusion when we assessing the computer and its employment in various fields including learning from the economic, legal and social perspective we can understand that the computer has come in to improve process efficiency. However their employment may be limited to set ups that do not involve human to human processes such as in the learning environment. While this is the case we can conclusively state that computers should not replace teachers as has been illustrated throughout this study. References Abernathy, W 1997, ‘Australian society of computers’, Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 3, no. 89, pp.58-59. Dobbs, J 2006, The Distancing in Education, Cambridge University Press. Gibson, A, Rigby, S & Tamsitt, G 2003, Commercial law: in principle, 3rd Ed, Lawbook Co., Sydney. Hall, AR 2009, An Evaluation of Computer-Based Programmed, Cambridge University Press. Hart, H 2006, Examining how teachers adjust, Citadel Press, New York. Ingvarsson, ET & Hanley, GP 2010, ‘An Evaluation of Computer-Based Programmed Instruction for Promoting Teachers' Greetings of Parents by Name’. Retrieved 14th April 2010 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1479777/ Kaplan, RS 2006, ‘Computer-Based Programmed’, Harvard Business Review, vol.8, no. 4, pp.100-109. Keith, T 2007, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Newhouse, P 1999, ‘Examining how teachers adjust to the availability of portable computers’ Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol.15, no.2, pp.148-166. Philips, R 2010, Australian society of computers. Retrieved 14th April 2010 from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/hereview/submissions/submissions/A/AustSocCompLearn.htm> Rusell, G 2006, Online virtual schooling in Europe. Retrieved 14th April 2010 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Glenn_Russell.htm Russell, G 2005, The Distancing Question in Online Education. (Online). Innovate: Journal of Online Education. Retrieved 14th April 2010 from http://horizon.unc.edu/innovate/ Turner, C 2007, Australian commercial law, 27th Ed, Lawbook Co, Sydney. Westfall, S 2008, Examining how teachers adjust to computers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Whiteside, DT 2009, “Virtual schooling" Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol.1, no.35, pp.116-138. Read More