The digital agora: using technology for learning in the social sciences

Reviewer: Brad D. Reid

This review surveys articles included in a special section of CACM focused on initiatives undertaken to ensure campuswide computing, that is, to ensure that every college student has a personal computer to use during his or her college years. In a timely and well-written introductory article, “Computers across campus,” Burg and Thomas, the section's guest editors, note that although begun at private universities, such initiatives are now found at a growing number of campuses throughout academia. They discuss the changing climate and technology that have contributed to the “inevitability” of such initiatives. A table lists schools with a campuswide computer requirement. In the next article, Brown, Burg, and Dominick report on the experience of Wake Forest University in implementing a campuswide computer initiative and the “two-prong strategy that is making this initiative a success: standardization of platforms, and decentralization of implementation.” Wake Forest now issues a standard ThinkPad 380 computer to every freshman. Students, faculty, and staff are on a two-year upgrade cycle, and students keep their computers after graduation. The software and network configurations at Wake Forest are described. The article is well written and includes the implementation plan in sufficient detail to be useful to others considering such a move. It contains figures, tables, and references. The next article describes the “Sandbox,” the Acadia Insitute for Teaching and Technology, an on-campus site where Acadia faculty can “discuss possibilities and find help in implementing technology-based enhancements to instruction.” According to MacDougall, the manager of the Sandbox, it “has proven to be a viable alternative to department-specific technical support,” since it prevents duplication and confusion, allows “the interdisciplinary exchange of ideas,” and allows “broad projects” such as a Web-based course environment to be undertaken. While initially created out of “budgetary necessity,” the Sandbox has been a success. Next, Candiotti and Clarke review Drew University's 15-year strategy to integrate technology into the curriculum. According to them, when “after six years, PC use had not penetrated the curriculum … we had to address two additional critical issues: academic facilities and faculty development.” The article discusses these issues in depth. It includes a timeline of “technology milestones” and 12 “hints” for a workshop program. The article is important reading for those responsible for integrating technology into an established organizational culture. In the brief article that follows, Weiser refers to ubiquitous computing in academia as the “third wave of the computing revolution.” According to him, “wireless communication will be key in tying together the diverse functions of the many computers around us.” Computers will become personal servers, and information will be available everywhere. While this will have its advantages, “potential invasion of privacy” is a significant danger. In the subsequent brief article, Biros discusses the experience of Drexel University in 1983 in establishing a policy that each incoming freshman would have personal access to a microcomputer. Students were billed for and picked up computers and bundled software three days before classes began. In 1997, Drexel made use of a catalog provider and subcontracted maintenance with a local computer repair company. The ramifications of these changes are still being determined. Next, Kaier, Mutchler, and Froyd discuss the computing experiences of students in an “integrated first-year curriculum in science, engineering, and mathematics (IFYC-SEM)” taught at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology by an interdisciplinary team of eight faculty members. From 1990 to 1995, students had to share central computing resources, but since 1996, each student has had his or her own personal computer and software suite. This availability has changed the way students view and use computers. According to the authors, “Instead of making occasional excursions into a laboratory with computers, students are in the computer laboratory all the time. In IFYCSEM, computers strengthen existing connections between disciplines, forge new links, and change the way in which students learn to solve problems.” The authors provide concrete examples of these phenomena at work in IFYCSEM. Watters, Conley, and Alexander next describe the “Digital Agora,” a social sciences interdisciplinary project at Acadia University. According to the authors, the Digital Agora is a “web-based system that facilitates the collaborative analysis of complex problems, such as peace initiatives, bioethics questions, consensus negotiations, and environmental issues.” Participants are to be “producers as well as consumers of information.” The article is well written, and includes a list of goals, rationales for Web design, and references. The limitations of the Web include lateral map construction, node and link authorship, typed links, privacy levels, fast and consistent storage, and navigation aids. Each of these issues is discussed. While discussed in the context of university education, these concepts may be of interest to those designing collaborative problem-solving systems. Following that,