© 2004 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Printed in U.S.A.
BIOCHEMISTRY
AND
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 132, 2004
Multimedia in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education Commentary: Twenty Years of Computers in Biochemical Education ORWELL DENIED Received for publication, January 21, 2004 Graham R. Parslow‡ From the Russel Grimwade School of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
The centenary of flight, initiated by the Wright brothers in 1903, has just passed. Because of this centenary, many articles on the early days of flight have appeared describing the initial amateur development, for example the article by Schlenoff [1]. In a comparable way to those magnificent men of flight, I was reminded of the magnificent men who pioneered microcomputers in biochemical education when I reached for a book of just that title, published in the Orwellian year of 1984 [2]. In appropriating the phrase “magnificent men,” it must be pointed out that one woman (Audrey Kerr) was included as a contributor to Ed Wood’s book [2]. The professionalization of computer applications in biochemical education has parallels with the development of flight. Within 20 years of the 1903 start, aircraft had become orders of magnitude better in their performance and professionalized in their manufacture and operation. In 1984, many of us were independently inventing the same sorts of applications to use with the new microcomputers. To most of us, it was a technology that enthralled us and we saw no limit to how these computers would help, amuse, and educate us. The dark potential for technology had been well considered by Orwell in 1948 [3], but the pioneers of biochemical education gave scant credence to creating an Orwellian society. In 1984, some aspirations and observations of the multimedia pioneers [2] were recorded as follows. Andre Barel wrote in the preface, “There is a great future for the use of microcomputers in the teaching of biochemical sciences and in the administration of a scientific department. The problem of specific manufacturer’s computer dialects is at present fully recognized [although] one may predict that within 5 or 10 years only a few major computer firms will survive (IBM, Apple, Sinclair) and will use systems which will be more compatible.” Robert Beynon (p. 1) wrote, “A recent survey has predicted that in 1984 sales of personal computers will exceed 2.6 million. How long will it be before every student is as likely to own a computer as a pocket calculator today? The microcomputer can assume a significant role in the management of education. In this category are included such diverse functions as maintenance of student records, assessment of students and word processing (which overcomes a major disincentive to update handouts and laboratory sched‡ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
[email protected].
ules). The best known CAL language PILOT has been implemented on a number of microcomputer systems, for example the pH tutorial by Kibby. To a certain extent, all teaching dilutes biochemical knowledge and concepts with a dogmatic presentation and the tendency to do this with the limited display facilities and storage capacity of the microcomputer may be unacceptable.” Alan Thomson (p. 19) wrote in a chapter on choosing a microcomputer, “Cassette tape is the cheapest storage for programs. The correct combination of amplification, audio filtering and head alignment is essential for reproducible loading and saving of programs. Those computers which have internal cassette recorders usually have fewer loading problems. If substantial word processing is done then a daisy-wheel printer may be necessary for quality, but most applications will benefit from the speed and easy adaptability of a dot matrix printer.” Kibby (p. 31) wrote, “Micros seem particularly good for personalised teaching, which contrast with programmed learning, multi-choice tests and other didactic approaches which are probably best handled by other means. As a tool for class demonstrations they are often limited by the visibility of even a large monitor; my experience in lecture rooms equipped with monochrome TV is less than encouraging. Those starting to program should not choose topics which have already been tackled by too many workers, such as enzyme kinetics, titrations, or match-stick models.” Ed Wood (p. 47) wrote, “The main conclusion from the limited amount of time spent by the author in devising teaching programs is that there is much potential, in educational terms, for explaining things to students at their own pace, and in an interactive and lively way.” The hardware issues of “microcomputers” that troubled us in 1984 have disappeared. The expectations that computers would find a useful role in biochemical education have largely been met. The specter of a dehumanized Orwellian education system has not eventuated. The challenge of how to teach well with technology still remains. How will observers comment on the centenary of computer applications in biochemical education? REFERENCES [1] Daniel C. Schlenoff (2003) The Equivocal Success of the Wright Brothers, Scientific American 12, 94 –97. [2] E. J. Wood, ed. (1984) Microcomputers in Biochemical Education, Taylor and Francis, London, 225 p. [3] George Orwell (1948) Nineteen Eighty-Four, Plume, London.
132
This paper is available on line at http://www.bambed.org
