UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Computing in higher education in the Dominican Republic García S., Thomas C. 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1992_spring_garcia_thomas.pdf [ 8.08MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0055299.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055299-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055299-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055299-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055299-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055299-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055299-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

COMPUTING IN HIGHER EDUCATIONIN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLICbyTHOMAS C. GARCIA S.B. Sc. (Hons) Pontificia Universidad CatOlica Madre y Maestra, 1989A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSin theDEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATIONFaculty of EducationWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJune, 1992© Thomas C. Garcia S., 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of  Math & Science EducationThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ^18 - June - 1992 DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the current status of educational computing in highereducation in the Dominican Republic by describing the computing resources available, and how they areutilized. The computing environment of seven universities was studied, with particular attention torespondents' perception of the availability and quality of physical, human, and logical resources forcomputing. In addition, the general disposition toward computing on the part of administrators andprofessors was examined, as well as the uses of computers in the areas of information, instruction, andproductivity.A review of the literature on educational computing was conducted, including aspects such ascomputer literacy, the roles of computers in education, characteristics of educational computing, andattitudes toward computers. Particular attention was paid to those aspects of major relevance for theLatin American context, such as transfer of technology and computing issues unique to that region.Seven private universities were selected for the study, based on the size of their student popula-tion and location within the country. A total of 194 professors from all faculties and departments of theseuniversities completed a questionnaire concerning the physical, human, and logical aspects of com-puting, as well as their knowledge about, and attitudes toward computing. Technical and administrativeinformation was gathered by interviewing a total of 12 individuals who were able to provide accurateinformation about universities' policies on computing, as well as the hardware and software technologiescurrently in use.Patterns of particular interest among the universities surveyed were identified, and the followingconclusions were drawn about the current status of educational computing and the use of computers inthe universities surveyed, the two focus questions of the study:1. Dominican educational computing is geared mostly to the areas of administration and com-iiputer science; other aspects of the field are relatively neglected. Although some progress is evident,economic limitations and problems such as the poor electrical infrastructure of the country are slowingthe evolution of computing in education. Training of professors in educational computing is almost non-existent; and, although computing is considered very important by both professors and administrators,few training, and support programs are in place. In general, Dominican educational computing presentsall of the characteristics mentioned in the literature as typical of developed countries: lack of planning,inequitable access to computing, inadequate software, need for integrating computers into the curricu-lum, and need for training.2. Dominican universities are well-developed in the use of computers for the management ofadministrative information, although use of computers for research and communication is very limited.The use of computers for personal productivity is increasing, but the cost of this technology is a majorimpediment to progress in this area. Instructional uses of computers are only common for computerliteracy and computer science courses; but, they are virtually unknown for courses in which the computeris a medium of instruction, rather than the subject of instruction. Both computer-using and non-using pro-fessors showed highly positive attitudes toward learning about and working with computers. Universityofficials also favor a change toward a more widespread use of computers in most universities, and seemto regard them as important tools for the development of individuals from all areas in society today.Based on these results, three basic recommendations were made. First, Dominican universitiesshould develop local educational computing policies to help in planning and implementing culturally ap-propriate uses of computers in educational settings. Second, Dominican universities should improve theavailability and quality of the human element of computing, especially their teaching staff, throughtraining on educational computing. Finally, universities should optimize the available physical resources,which appear to be under-utilized in many areas.TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstractList of Tables^ ViiiList of Figures ixAcknowledgements^ xiiCHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEMBACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM^ 1Educational Computing in Higher Education^ 1Educational Computing in Third World Countries 3The Dominican Republic^ 4The Dominican Educational System^ 5PURPOSE AND NATURE OF THE STUDY 9Research Questions^ 10Justification of the Study 11DEFINITION OF TERMS^ 12ORGANIZATION OF FOLLOWING CHAPTERS^ 14CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE^ 15EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING^ 15Computer Literacy 15Conceptualization of Computer Literacy^ 16Computers in Education^ 19ivRoles of Computers in Education^ 20Characteristics of Educational Computing 28Computing in Higher Education^ 34Attitudes toward Computers 36EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING IN LATIN AMERICA^ 37Background on Education in Latin America 37Computer Literacy in the Third World^ 45Transfer of Technology^ 48Computing Issues in Latin America^ 52CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY^ 57POPULATION AND GENERALIZABILITY OF THE STUDY^ 57SAMPLING^ 58The Universities 59DATA COLLECTION^ 64Questionnaire Development^ 65Interviews^ 66Pilot Study 67ANALYSIS AND REPORTING^ 69CHAPTER 4: RESULTS^ 71PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS^ 71THE STATUS OF EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING IN DOMINICAN UNIVERSITIES^78The Computing Environment^ 78vPhysical Resources^ 81Human Resources 96Logical Resources^ 105THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN DOMINICAN UNIVERSITIES^ 113The Roles of Computers in Dominican Universities 114Professors Uses of Computers^ 121Professors Attitudes toward Computers^ 124CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS^ 130THE STATUS OF EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING IN DOMINICAN UNIVERSITIES^130Physical Resources^ 131Human Resources 133Logical Resources^ 134Characteristics of Educational Computing in Dominican Republic^ 135USES OF COMPUTERS IN DOMINICAN UNIVERSITIES^ 138Roles of Computers in Dominican Universities 138Professors Attitudes toward Computers^ 139RECOMMENDATIONS^ 140Development of Local Educational Computing Policies^ 141Improving Availability and Quality of Human Resources 141Optimization of Available Physical Resources^ 142LIMITATIONS^ 142SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY^ 143viREFERENCES^ 145APPENDIXA: Professor Questionnaire (Original)^ 154B: Professor Questionnaire (Translated) 167C: Administrative Interview Schedule^ 180D: Technical Interview Schedule 183E: Tables for Figures in Chapter 4^ 187viiUST OF TABLES1.Questionnaire response rates by university^ 712.Distribution of users and non-users of computers by university^ 733.Summary of the type of hardware and software available in the universities surveyed^844.Setup, and services offered in computer laboratories in the universities surveyed^925.Reliability of the modified computer attitude scale (LERTAP output)^1256.Principal components factorial analysis results (SYSTAT output)^126viiiLIST OF FIGURES1.The roles of computers in education^ 212.Location and other basic information about the selected universities^ 633.Distribution of the age of professors across universities^ 724.Distribution of the experience of professors in the field of education across universities^725.Distribution of the highest degrees held by surveyed professors across universities^736.Percentage of computer-using professors across universities^ 747.Computing experience of computer users across universities^ 758.Year in which computer-using professors started using computers, by university^759.Places in which professors learned about computers^ 7610.Percentage of YES and NO responses to knowledge questions about computers^7711.Organizational approaches to computing used by the surveyed universities^ 7912.Percentage of computer users who said they had computers available at their universities^85ix13.Percentage of users who said the number of computers was adequate^ 8614.Percentage of computer users who experienced hardware-related problems 8815.Percentage of non-users who did not use computers because of hardware-related reasons^8916.Percentage of computer users who experienced software-related problems^ 9017.Percentage of users who said the location of computers was adequate^ 9418.Percentage of users who said the supply of electricity was adequate^ 9619.Percentage of computer users who obtained computer training by different means^9820.Percentage of professors who thought there was not enough training opportunity^9921.Percentage of professors who were aware of, and given training courses at their university^10022.Percentage of professors who said these topics were taught in training courses^10123.Professors rating of the training courses received in their university^ 10224.Percentage of users who said the availability of technical personnel was adequate^10425.Percentage of users who said the experience of technical personnel was adequate^10426.Percentage of professors who thought poor maintenance of equipment was a problem^105x27.Sources of information for computer users who keep up-to-date in computing^10728.Percentage of professors who thought availability of information was adequate^10829.Number of users and non-users that were aware of, and participated in training courses^10830.Percentage of the applications used by professors that are in Spanish^10931Percentage of computes users who experienced administrative/organizational problems^11232.Percentage of non-users who thought these were reasons for not using computers^11333.Percentage of computes users who experienced problems using computers for instruction^11834.Percentage of professors who use each kind of computer application^ 12235Frequency with which professors who use each kind of computer application^12336.Percentage of professors who use applications for personal, educational use, or both^12437.Distribution of professors' attitudes toward computers across universities^ 12738.Distribution of attitudes toward computers for computer users and non-users^12739.Distribution of professors' attitudes toward computers across universities^ 128xiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI wish to extend my gratitude to all those who have contributed in one way or another to thesuccessful completion of this work. Thanks to David Robitaille and David Bateson for their support andadvice and from whom I hope to have learned as much as I think I did, about my thesis work and aboutlife. Special thanks are due to Marcia Johnson, whose guidance was invaluable in making this a mean-ingful qualitative study.In the Dominican Republic, thanks to everyone at the research centre at PUCMM, especially SarahGonzalez and Eduardo Luna, who gave me the opportunity to study at UBC. Also, thanks are due to allthose who facilitated the undertaking of this study in usrrEc, o&M, PUCMM, um, UNIBE, UNPHU, andUTESA. Their support and their collaboration through the data collection process, and their understandingof the importance of this study is greatly appreciated. I hope all researchers found their work asgratifying as I did.I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students for their support and collaboration in thetedious job of correcting and proof-reading this work, as well as all others that offered their help at onetime or another. Among them, special thanks to Sandra Crespo, Cynthia Nicol, and Heather Kelleher.Finally, I wish to thank my mother, father, and brother, whose support, patience and under-standing helped me through my studies and during my long stay away from home. To them this work isdedicated.xiiCHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEMBackground to the ProblemDominican universities, like many others in Latin America, began using computers, particularlymicrocomputers, only recently; and they are now facing a number of educational computing issues thatneed to be resolved (GOmez Moreno, 1989). As some authors have stated (Galvis, 1987; Harvey, 1983;Weston, 1988), there is a need to gather information about the use of computers in Latin Americanuniversities, and the unique characteristics of their computing environments. This information should beused for planning and analysis of appropriate uses for the computing technology that is available to theseuniversities. At the present time, context-specific information of this kind is not readily available.The present study analyzes the use of computers in higher education in the Dominican Republicin an effort to understand and improve how technology is being used in this third world country, wheretechnological resources are few and expensive. Thus, the purpose of the study is to assess the presentstatus of educational computing in the major universities, as well as to describe the general dispositiontoward educational computing on the part of professors and administrators.Educational Computing in Higher EducationComputers have been used in higher education in developed countries since the 1950s forscientific and administrative applications, but their use has since greatly expanded, and universities arenow using computers for both academic and administrative purposes (Becker, 1982; Bork, 1984;Dockerill, 1987; Graham & 'Carlsson, 1987; Mudd & Wilson, 1987). The rapid development and evolutionof microcomputer technology over the last fifteen years has triggered significant changes in the waycomputers are perceived and used by college and university personnel, who now view the computer as amulti-purpose rather than a specific-purpose tool (Gillespie, 1983). However, the education community1is still struggling with other more complex issues in educational computing including, for example,computer literacy and the effectiveness of using computers for instruction (Collier, McGowan & Ryan,1987; Marshall, 1984). Indeed, the impact of computers on education appears to be limited and most suc-cessful implementations of educational technology have been in a few specific areas, such as design toolsin engineering and administrative systems, rather than in other areas where expectations have historicallybeen very high, for example, when computers are used for teaching purposes (Becker, 1982; Gilbert &Green, 1986). Even so, the use of computers in higher education institutions has been increasing steadilyover the last decade and is still increasing (Collier et al., 1987; Ploch, 1984).Universities today seem to have little choice as to whether or not to provide computing servicesand computer education. As Gilbert and Green (1986) state, "The microcomputer revolution comes withforces that are difficult to resist" (p. 34). It is difficult to deny the importance of teaching about computersin the developed world. Computers now form part of our everyday life in many ways, and knowingabout computers will eventually be as important as knowing how to read or write (Marshall, 1984). Thefact that businesses of all kinds already assume that potential employees are "computer literate" putspressure on the educational system to provide (or appear to be providing) such knowledge (Collier et at, 1987).A model of how computers can be used in education can be devised by examining the literatureon the subject, and in particular, the ideas of Gilbert and Green (1987), Taylor (1980), and Schultz andHart (1983). Three fundamental roles of computers in education—information, instruction, andproductivity—and their interaction are identified as the components of the model. Information refers tothe use of computers for research, science, and management, as described by Gilbert and Green (1987).The role of computers in instruction refers to the use of the computer in the classroom for teachingpurposes, as well as its use as an object of instruction. Finally, productivity refers to the use of general-purpose computer applications by students and faculty personnel to enhance their work. A thoroughdiscussion of this model of the roles of computers in education is presented in Chapter 2.2It has been claimed that the greatest importance of computers in education stems from theirusefulness as tools (Chan, 1989; Gillespie, 1983). However, the effectiveness of their use may behampered by economic, intellectual, environmental, social, and cultural factors which vary from oneeducational setting to another. Many authors have pointed out that careful planning and assessment ofneeds is the key to effective implementation of any technology (Blankenship, 1985; Carter, 1990; IsTFFET,1986; Sybouts & Stevens, 1986). In particular, Brine and Johnson (1990a) suggest that successfulimplementation of educational technology must first address curricular issues and specific educationalpolicies.Educational Computing in Third World CountriesAs industrialized nations move toward a more highly computerized society, third world countriesstruggle in their efforts not to be left behind (Marshall, 1984). These countries face many obstacles intrying to implement educational computing efficiently, including high cost, poor hardware reliability,poor quality of software, deficient telecommunications infrastructure, poor definition of goals, inadequategovernmental support, lack of information on computing, and shortage of personnel trained in the use ofeducational media and technology (Alvarez, Smiley & Rorhmann, 1985; Araujo, 1989; Hungwe, 1989).One of the most important problems in educational computing that third world countries face istransfer of technology. Importing technology from developed countries has been mistakenly regarded asthe solution for all educational problems in developing countries (Chadwick, 1983; Marshall, 1984).Because of their poor technological development, third world countries are forced to import technologyfrom developed countries. It is important therefore to evaluate and modify this technology and adapt itto each country's specific educational needs (Galvis, 1987).To be able to achieve this goal, it is essential that third world countries develop their ownculturally appropriate tools. This requires "new organizational structures, new personnel and new ways3of thinking, doing and organizing" (Hungwe, 1989, p. 22). In general, all of these objectives can beachieved through education and training, but it is a process that takes time and it is not free of obstacles.Araujo (1989) describes a number of possible solutions if some investment is made, and if the use ofavailable resources is optimized. Among these solutions, the first to be examined should be investmentsin the areas of personnel development, enhancement of the quality of instructional material througheducational planning, and improvement of educational administration.For many third world countries, such as the Dominican Republic, educational computing is fairlyrecent, and many of the issues mentioned must be examined in order to arrive at appropriate implemen-tations, including the educational system itself. The next sections provide some insight into the Domini-can Republic, its educational system, and especially its higher education system, so that the reader canbetter understand the context in which this study was conducted.The Dominican RepublicThe Dominican Republic occupies the eastern two thirds of the island of Hispaniola, which itshares with the Republic of Haiti. The island is located in the Caribbean Sea, with Puerto Rico to the eastand Cuba to the west. The country has an area of 48,000 square kilometres and a population ofapproximately eight million people. At the beginning of the 1980s, the proportions of rural populationand urban population were about equal, but a trend toward migration to urban areas has resulted in thepresent rate of 40 percent rural and 60 percent urban (FernAndez, 1990).The Dominican Republic's economy is typical of that of many third world countries. About 25percent of its gross national product comes from agriculture and mining, with the main products beingsugar, tobacco, coffee, cocoa, gold, bauxite, and iron-nickel. The main problem currently facing thecountry is a lack of energy. This energy deficiency has been worsening for the past four or five years,making the country almost totally dependent on foreign oil for transportation and electricity. In fact, the4lack of fuel and electricity has almost brought the country to a halt several times in the past year, and it isproving to be a major obstacle to the development of computing technology which depends on a con-stant source of electricity.Another problem is the economic difference among population groups in the country. Therichest 14 percent receives approximately 55 percent of the total income, while the poorest 29 percentreceives only 6 percent. The rate of unemployment is over 20 percent and underemployment is an evenworse problem (Aleman, 1988; Fernandez, 1990).The form of government is a representative democracy with characteristics typical of third worldcountries, namely a history of dependency and dictatorship. Two political parties have controlled thegovernment alternately for the past 20 years, with opposition from a third party, making unified planningand implementation of what could otherwise be productive governmental policies very difficult at best(Mejia, 1988).The Dominican Educational SystemPreschool, Primary and Secondary EducationThe Consejo Nacional de EducaciOn, CNE (National Council for Education) is the mainregulatory body of the Dominican Republic's educational system. Public education at the preschool,primary, and secondary levels in the Dominican Republic is controlled by the Secretaria de Estado deEducaciOn, Bellas Artes y Cultos, SEEBAC (Secretariat of Education, Fine Arts, and Culture). The SEEBACalso sets curriculum for all three levels of education for both private and public educationalinstitutions. Primary education is mandatory, although this is more in theory than in practice, and thehigh number of drop-outs is a cause for concern (Crespo, 1990; Troxell Sellew, 1987).Two educational programs are currently in effect. The traditional system includes six years of5primary education, two years of intermediate school, and four years of secondary education. Since 1970,the government has tried to implement a new "reformed program", but this initiative has not beensuccessful. Only a few schools originally set up as pilot projects still operate under this system. Theprogram consists of six years of primary education and six years of secondary school (a four-year basiccycle followed by two years of a specialization cycle).Higher EducationDominican institutions of higher education are largely independent of SEEBAC. Laws regulatingpreschool, primary, and secondary education explicitly exclude higher education, which is regulated byspecial laws. A brief study of the evolution of the higher education system shows that it has beencharacterized by a laissez-faire attitude on the part of the government.Before 1962, only one university operated in the Dominican Republic: the Universidad deSanto Domingo. After the downfall of the dictator, Rafael L. Trujillo M., in 1962, many changes tookplace in all aspects of the Dominican Republic's development, including major changes in the economyand in education.The most impressive changes in education occurred in the higher education sector. In 1965,there were two higher education institutions with a total enrollment of 6,963 students: the renamedUniversidad AutOnoma de Santo Domingo, which gained autonomy from the govemment ineverything except the obligation on the part of the government to provide funding for the university; andthe Universidad Cataica Madre y Maestra, authorized by a special decree and administered directlyby the Catholic Church. By 1975, the number of universities had increased to seven with 41,000students: an increase in student enrollment of almost 500 percent in only five years. By 1978, there where14 institutions with legal standing and an enrollment of approximately 78,000 students. By 1982, therewere 15 recognized universities (1 public, 5 private with partial government support, and 9 private with-6out public funds) enrolling a total of approximately 100,000 students. Currently there are 24 universitieswith legal standing in the country, offering technical, bachelor, and doctoral degrees to a total studentpopulation of about 150,000 (AlemAn, 1988; Fernandez, 1990; Mejia, 1988).As Mejia (1988) explains, this rapid growth in the demand for higher education is a directconsequence of changes in the national economy. The economic growth experienced by the DominicanRepublic after the period of political instability following the downfall of Trujillo has almost no parallel inthe economic history of the western hemisphere. From 1971 to 1974 the gross national product grew inreal terms at an annual average of 11 percent per year (Mejia, 1988). These changes triggered other socialchanges as well, resulting in a rapid growth of the urban population from 30 percent of the totalpopulation to about 50 percent, caused mainly by a greater demand for human resources for thebooming industrial sector.Up to that point, the only government involvement in higher education had simply been to givethe institutions authorization to exist as legal organizations and to grant higher education degrees. Thelack of quality standards or control mechanisms and the great demand for education led to a proliferationof profit-seeking higher education institutions, which operated and made their profits based on lowbudgets and low academic quality.Due to the growth in student registration after 1965, the establishment of many new universitiesin subsequent years, and the poor quality of some of those institutions, the need for some degree ofgovernment control over post-secondary education became obvious. The pressure on the government tocreate control mechanisms came not only from the national sector, but also from other countries, sincemany foreign students were coming to the Dominican Republic seeking higher education degrees,particularly in the field of medicine.In 1977, a group of five private universities formed the AsociaciOn Dominicana de RectoresUniversidades, ADRU (Dominican Association of University Rectors), and it became one of the main7promoters of new legislation regarding higher education. In 1978, legislation was passed forbidding thecreation of new universities, and a commission was formed to study the current situation and devise asolution. One of the recommendations of that commission was that a national council on highereducation be created. However, the commission did not succeed in getting the proposed legislationthrough congress because of opposition from several sectors, and nothing was accomplished until1982. Although no new universities were officially authorized, several institutions were created duringthat period and operated without official recognition.During the period from 1978 to 1982, an important turning point in the economy came aboutwhen several events basically destroyed the nation's economy. In 1979 Hurricane David causedextensive damage to the nation's infrastructure. Second, increases in fuel prices raised the national fuelbill from 9.6 percent of the income from imports in 1973 to 60 percent in 1982. Third, the price of sugarfell dramatically, particularly in 1982. These and other events brought the Dominican balance ofpayments from a surplus of 42 million pesos during the period 1973-1977 to a deficit of 768 million pesos(Mejia, 1988).In March 1983, the Consejo Nacional de Educacidn Superior, CONES (National Council onHigher Education) was created by government decree to study the situation and develop alternatives.The main objective of corms was to oversee the administration and operation of higher educationinstitutions. With that in mind, CONES developed guidelines specifying the minimum requirements andcharacteristics of a private Dominican university, in terms of physical facilities, faculty qualifications, andacademic standards. For an institution to receive legal standing, it first had to comply with therequirements set forth by CONES and then receive authorization from the Executive Branch. When coNEsstarted operating in 1983, recognized institutions were re-evaluated and non-recognized institutions wereobliged to comply with cos'NE requirements as well. Legally, coNEs has a significant amount of controlover universities. Lack of resources, however, has hindered coNEs' efforts, and some approved institu-8tions do not comply with standards set by the regulatory unit (Troxell Sellew, 1987).One of the main problems affecting the quality of higher education in the Dominican Republictoday is one common to other third world countries, a shortage of qualified professors. Because salariesare so low (about US$200/month), universities have difficulty attracting qualified personnel for instruc-tion, particularly in computer-related fields. Most institutions hire professionals for teaching on apart-time basis and most professors have several jobs (Troxell Sellew, 1987).Purpose and Nature of the StudyLatin American universities began to use computers on a relatively large scale only recently(Palmer, 1986). In the Dominican Republic, these implementation efforts have been slow and orientedmainly toward administration and computer science, neglecting the possible benefits of computer use inother areas where similar Latin American countries have found the use of computers beneficial (GonzalezFiegehen, 1987). An examination of the problems faced by other Latin American countries suggests thattwo possible factors contribute significantly to the Dominican situation: the country's economic situationand its many consequences, and a general lack of knowledge about computers and their applications ineducational settings (Galvis, 1987; Hungwe, 1989; Marshall, 1984). However, there is a need for moreinformation to be able to make judgments about these and other factors involved in the Dominicaneducational computing context.This study is concerned with gathering information about the Dominican educationalcomputing context by surveying attitudes toward computers and the actual use of computers by profes-sors and administrative personnel in the Dominican Republic's major universities. This information willhelp to determine what kind of educational computing technology is in place, who is using it, and how itis being used. By examining the policies of the different universities with respect to educational comput-ing and the level of computer literacy of their professors, it may be possible to understand why comput-9ers are being used as they are. This study also includes a review of the literature in order to investigatehow other higher education institutions around the world, particularly in Latin America, are implementingeducational computing, and to determine the perceived benefits of this technology.The purpose of the study then, is to assess the present status of educational technology in theDominican Republic in terms of hardware and software used, applications of computers in education(both academic and administrative), policies of universities regarding computer technology, and aware-ness of users and non-users of this technology. In addition, the information gathered will be useful tocompare universities within the Dominican Republic and to obtain a general idea of the state ofeducational computing in the country relative to that of other countries.Research QuestionsTwo main questions were devised in order to gather as much information as possible whilemaintaining the feasibility of a study of this nature.1. What is the status of educational computing in Dominican universities?This question was directed to both the academic and the administrative aspects of educationalcomputing. Respondents were asked to provide information about the kind of computing technologythat is available to Dominican universities in terms of hardware and software, and the availability ofphysical, human, and logical resources needed to support this technology.Another objective of this study is to examine the policies that Dominican universities haveregarding educational computing, and to analyze the differences between the academic and administra-tive points of view about computers and computer applications in education. Through this process it willbe possible for the reader to evaluate these universities within their local environment as well as in rela-tion to other universities in Latin America and technically advanced countries. The information provided10here is relevant in that it will help identify unique Dominican situations independent of cultural or socialissues that differentiate this country from otherwise similar countries. It will also provide informationregarding differences in the availability and use of computing technology among Dominican universities.2. How are computers used in Dominican universities?The purpose underlying this question is to discover what Dominican universities, and theirprofessors are doing with the computer technology that is available to them. This question relates to boththe actual uses of computers and the kinds of application software being used. An important sub-question is: Why are computers being used in these ways? Local conditions may affect both applicationand hardware selection and use. It is therefore of interest to determine which are the major factorsaffecting the acquisition and use of computing technology in Dominican universities. Finally, thisquestion will address the issue of awareness of, and attitude toward computers and their use in highereducation on the part of professors and administrative personnel.Justification of the StudyThe present study is intended to achieve several goals, both theoretical and practical. On thepractical side, research shows that the introduction of computers into education has frequently beenbased on poor planning (if any planning at all), and this in turn has led to poor implementation ofcomputing technology at all levels of education (Brine & Johnson, 1990a; Galvis, 1987). In addition,unsuccessful approaches to solving the problems of educational computing in Latin America in the pasthave been identified as being the consequences of a lack of understanding of problems unique to thearea. Many of these problems have to do with technology transfer issues (Marshall, 1984). Knowing theconditions and state of affairs in Dominican universities, supplemented with the information gatheredthrough this study, it might be possible to suggest new or alternative uses of computers in different11educational areas that are aimed at optimizing the use of computing technology. Knowing the comput-ing strategies and organizational policies of the universities would also assist in suggesting appropriateimplementation. The knowledge needed to carry out this task will come from the understanding of theDominican context as well as from experiences in other universities around the world.This study is also the first step in gathering basic information regarding educational computing inthe Dominican Republic, and it is intended to provide the foundation for other researchers to build upon,and to carry out new efforts that may have greater practical implications. There is little research donetoday in Latin American countries even though there is enough evidence to remind us that there is needfor such research (Rojas Cortes, 1988). In the Dominican Republic, resources are limited, qualifiedresearchers are few, and there is little tradition of such work (Aleman, 1988; Chadwick, 1983).Definition of TermsEducational TechnologyThe Association for Educational Communication and Technology's ((Ecr) Task Force onDefinition and Terminology (1977) defines educational technology as "a complex, integrated process,involving people, procedures, ideas, devices and organization, for analyzing problems, and devising,implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems, involved in all aspects of humanlearning" (p. 164). It is a very broad field, combining aspects of educational psychology, media, and thesystems approach applied to educational problems (Chadwick, 1983). It is often confused with terms thatsuggest application of a certain specific technology in education.12Educational ComputingAs used throughout this thesis, educational computing represents the field of applications ofcomputers in education, and their role in educational technology. It includes planning, organizationalstrategies, and all possible aspects and uses of computers in the field of education. Note that it is notsimply the physical aspects of computers that are analyzed, but all the topics related to computing in thefield of education, as implied by the educational technology definition above.Technology TransferAn especially relevant term used throughout this work is "transfer of technology". It representsthe process of applying certain technology (as defined above) to a different setting, and in our case, thetransfer of educational computing technology from other countries to the Dominican Republic; it involvesmainly issues of cultural and social-economic nature.Computer literacyAnother important term used is "computer literacy". There is no consensus among so-called"experts" as to exactly what it means. It represents the field of educational computing as it applies tolearning about computers, or the view of computers as objects of study; as such, it encompasses all issuesregarding the needs and ways to learn about computers in today's society.In its more general sense, computer literacy could be described as the knowledge aboutcomputers needed today to succeed in our everyday life. From this perspective, it is obvious that theexact definition of computer literacy will vary depending upon the actual economic, cultural, andtechnological setting to which is going to be applied. Different authors have very different views as towhat exactly we need to know about computers, and the subject is treated in depth in the followingchapter.13Organization of the Following ChaptersIn the following chapters a review of the literature on educational computing, a description ofthe methodology used in this study, its results, and a discussion of these results can be found. Chapter 2reviews the literature on educational computing and the uses of computers, with particular attention tothe Latin American region. Chapter 3 contains a description of the universities selected for this study, thedevelopment and administration of the instruments, and the procedure followed for the analysis of thedata. The results and findings are presented in Chapter 4, and a summary of those results, as well asrecommendations are presented in Chapter 5.14CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREThe purpose of this study is to assess the current status of educational computing in highereducation in the Dominican Republic, and to analyze how computers are used in this environment. Thischapter is concerned with reviewing the literature on the most relevant aspects of educational computingin general, and the ways in which those aspects relate to both Latin American and third world environ-ments. Its content is divided into two sections covering two main areas of interest: educational com-puting in general, and educational computing in Latin America and the third world.Educational ComputingAn understanding of educational computing requires an examination of key aspects of theintroduction, use, and status of computer technology in the educational environment. This sectionbegins with a review of the literature on computer literacy, and the different approaches to its conceptual-ization, followed by a description of computers and their roles in education. The most commoncharacteristics of educational computing identified in the literature are also described. Finally, the lit-erature on the attitude toward computers—an important aspect of this study—is reviewed.Computer LiteracyA number of authors have emphasized the importance of knowing about computers in today'ssociety. They maintain that a certain degree of knowledge about computers and their uses is increasinglyneeded for any individual to succeed in a computerized world (Agee, 1985; Galvis, 1987; Helms, 1985;Kay, 1989; Marshall, 1984). This kind of knowledge is particularly important if the educational com-munity is to assume the task of educating for a computer age, since educators must be computer literateto achieve this goal. Furthermore, one of the most emphasized aspects of introducing computing tech-15nology in schools and universities is the need for careful planning and definition of goals that a computerliteracy program must achieve (Becker, 1982; Brine & Johnson, 1990a; Gilbert & Green, 1986a; Sybouts &Stevens, 1986). This kind of planning and definition of goals requires a thorough understanding ofdifferent aspects of the technology in question, and this understanding must include a clear concept ofcomputer literacy. Rather than just attempting to define the term, this section reviews the literature oncomputer literacy by looking at the different views about what an individual should know to beconsidered computer literate.Conceptualization of Computer LiteracyThere is no consensus as to what the term "computer literacy" means. Since the early 1970s ithas been used to represent different aspects and levels of knowledge about computers. In its mostgeneral form, computer literacy refers to the knowledge about computers that every person needs tofunction properly in today's society. Most authors agree that some degree of computer understanding isnecessary in today's society, but they seem to disagree about what specific topics should be included andabout what level of specificity is required to be computer literate.Robin H. Kay (1989) categorized the different approaches to defining computer literacy over thelast twenty years. He identified five categories into which articles about the subject mainly fall:specificity, global, planned, evolutionary, and the individual needs approach. This section examinesthese different views of computer literacy, the basic assumptions behind them, and the ideas that theproponents of the different approaches use to support them.Specificity ApproachThis approach to computer literacy is supported by those who favor concentrating on one aspectof computer knowledge, omitting other aspects. Kay (1989) defines four distinctive areas of specificity:16technology, programming, the computer as a tool, and computer awareness.Calfee (1985), a proponent of the technology aspect, argues that "power comes from under-standing how something works" (p. 1). To use computers effectively we must first understand how theywork. Supporters of the programming aspect define computer literacy as being able to control thecomputer, and to do so one must know how to program, or what they call "communicate using symbolsthrough the computer" (Pickert & Hunter, 1983, p. 7). The next view has to do with considering thecomputer a multi-purpose information tool, and its supporters believe that the real necessity is to knowabout software, because it is software that makes computers useful (Farrel, 1984). Finally, the computerawareness advocates believe that the most important component of a computer literacy program shouldbe a set of fundamentals about computers, including computer and application basics, social andeconomic impact, and the limitations of technology.In arguing against some aspects of the specificity approach, Zemke (1984) and Rundall (1985)support the idea that in-depth knowledge of computer technology is not really needed to take advantageof it and support their arguments with the simple fact that we all drive cars without the need of knowingexactly how they work. Others refute the programming supporters by stating that, while some benefitsmay be achieved by learning programming, new powerful software tools and ever-friendlier operatingsystems permit users to take full advantage of the computer without having to acquire programming skills(Haigh,1985; Hasset, 1984; Jackson, Clements, & Jones, 1985). The other two areas of the specificityapproach—tool and awareness—have been less debated.Global ApproachIn reaction to the specificity advocates, a comprehensive approach to computer literacy wasborn, incorporating a number of topics one should learn to be considered computer literate (Kay, 1989).Among dozens of different learning objectives, topics include applications, hardware, impact, pro-17gramming/algorithms, software and data processing, motor skills, and values and feelings. The obviouslimitation of this approach lies in the impracticality of teaching or learning all the proposed material. Thislimitation led a more moderate group of individuals to reduce the number of topics (Fary, 1984), but Kay(1989) explains it still is nearly impossible for a normal person to gather and maintain that amount ofknowledge in a rapidly changing area such as computing technology.Planned ApproachThe planned approach calls for extensive planning before making decisions about computerliteracy. Railsback (1983), and Ganske and Hamamoto (1984) explain that we must understand exactlywhat is happening in the area of computers to be able to plan ahead and prepare well for computingtoday and tomorrow. However, as Kay (1989) explains, change in the computer industry is too fast tostop and plan ahead, and by the time one devises a plan for an specific area of computer knowledge, therequired knowledge may be already obsolete, and therefore useless.Evolutionary ApproachMore recent authors (Calfee, 1985; Naiman, 1987) support the idea that few practical outcomescan be expected from efforts to find a strict definition of computer literacy. Technology is fast-changingso that computer literacy is also changing and the definition of today will probably not apply tomorrow.It is questionable whether this approach is practical, since nothing is gained from just letting thecomputer revolution happen without taking any action (Kay, 1989).Individual Needs ApproachThe underlying position of advocates of the individual needs approach is that the computer ismerely another tool, like the telephone or the typewriter. People should really focus on learning how to18use computers in their specific area of work. One becomes computer literate by learning to use thecomputer as a tool to help achieve individual goals.It has been suggested that educational institutions should adopt this approach and apply itdirectly to education, just as it has been done in the business community. The big difference between thetwo settings, explains Kay (1989), is that in the business world, the need for computers came before theyactually had them. In contrast, the education system has been supplied with a tool without having anyuse for it. For this reason, the need for focusing on educational goals, rather then on technological goalsshould be emphasized (Brine and Johnson, 1990a; Hasset, 1984; Moont, 1986).Computers in EducationThe evolution of computing technology has created what many consider to be a new era in ourtime (Blankenship, 1985; Esteniou, 1987). Computers have been used in educational institutions sincethe 1950s, but it was not until the last decade that computers became widely available. Since theintroduction of the microcomputer in the late 1970s, computing technology has been changing from acentralized to a decentralized approach, and changing from an emphasis on mainframes to the use ofpersonal computers at all levels and in all aspects of educational computing. Most authors agree that theever-decreasing cost coupled with the increasing power of microcomputers present educational systemsand institutions with an unprecedented opportunity to enhance education in many ways (Dwyer, 1980;Fonseca & Schaffer, 1990; Galvis, 1988b; Gilbert & Green, 1986a; Gillespie, 1983; Marino Drews, 1988;Taylor, 1980; NITET, 1986; Schultz & Hart, 1983).The introduction of computing technology in education has been controversial, however,primarily because while implementations of computers in education have met with mixed success,computers keep pouring into educational institutions at ever-increasing rates (Bork, 1984; rum, 1986;O'Neil, 1990). As mentioned before, Kay (1989) explains that "the tremendous success of computers in19the business world is probably due to the fact that need came before ability" (p. 42), and that this has notbeen the case in education. In fact, it has been suggested many times that pressure from society,particularly from the business sector and from families of students at all levels of education, has been adetermining factor in pushing computers into the educational field (Bork, 1984; Gilbert & Green, 1986a;Kay, 1989; Marino Drews, 1988; Marshall, 1984). In addition to that, Tucker (1983) indicated that mostfailures of computer use in schools have been related to externally-imposed motivators.Computers have been shown to have many applications in education at all levels. Despite this,expectations about the introduction of computing technology in education have been much higher thanthe actual outcomes perceived to date (Gilbert & Green, 1986a, O'Neil 1990). O'Neil (1990) states that,even in educational institutions where computers have been available for some time, it is estimated thatonly a small percentage of them are taking advantage of this technology, while the impact of computersin the great majority of cases is negligible. On the other hand, even though limited access to computersand the relative newness of this technology in education have restricted positive outcomes of educationaltechnology implementations, there is evidence that significant progress can be made in many aspects ofeducation by using computers (Chan, 1990; Mecklenburger, 1990; x,1986).Roles of Computers in EducationAlthough authors have used a number of different approaches to the subject, the literatureshows a fairly clear and generally accepted categorization of the basic roles of computers ineducation. However, authors use different names for the same aspect of educational computing, theyconcentrate on one or two specific roles, or they approach educational computing from different per-spectives. Perceptions of the importance of some aspects of computing over others have also changedover the years as a result of significant developments in those areas (Gillespie, 1983).For these reasons this review of the literature has been organized by the three areas of20educational computing that are most easily identified as the main roles of computers in education today:information, instruction, and productivity. These three areas of computer usage in education can begraphically represented as shown in Figure 1. These roles of computers in education present somecharacteristics that are described in the model proposed by Gilbert and Green (1986a). It is a dynamicmodel, meaning that the three areas mentioned continuously change to reflect changes in the underlyingtechnology. They also show a high degree of interdependence, since it is often the case that one or twoof these aspects are used to support the other(s). For this reason, it is impossible to completely separatethese roles of computing in education. As an example of this fact, Gilbert and Green (1986a) state that"while the information dimension traditionally involved the generation of new knowledge, today'stechnology adds the component of affordable, local access to information via databanks and communica-tions networks, access that can aid a student learning and personal productivity" (p. 36).Figure 1 The roles of computers in education.21InformationThe information role of computers includes new and varied ways to manipulate vast amounts ofdata in different academic and administrative areas of higher education. Gillespie (1983) stated that "Theoriginal uses of computers—to solve scientific and administrative problems too large or too time-consuming to handle any other way—are now just a small part of the picture" (p. 53). Uses of computersfor information handling include research, administration services, electronic mail, library systems, andelectronic databases available on universal computer networks (Gilbert & Green, 1986a; Gillespie, 1983;Schultz & Hart, 1983).The role of the computer in manipulating data has become critical in the area of administration,for example. Budgeting, payroll, inventory, and personnel, are examples of administrative tasks forwhich computers are used in most educational institutions. Information systems in schools and univer-sities keep track of scheduling, attendance, grades, and other kinds of student-related information (Gilles-pie, 1983; Schultz & Hart, 1983).Research is still one of the main uses of computers in the form of data gathering and statisticalanalyses, and this role is also expanding. Gilbert and Green (1986a) explain that libraries in educationalinstitutions at all levels are using computer systems to allow students to get the data and information theywant quickly and easily. Electronic databases are available in most higher education institutions indeveloped countries, which are in turn linked to one another by worldwide communication networks.Gillespie (1983) stressed the increasing importance of electronic mail for interdepartmentalcommunication in educational institutions, particularly in higher education. Although it still is mainly ahigher education tool, electronic mail has been migrating from mainframe systems to microcomputers,and thus is increasingly becoming available to teachers and students at the elementary and secondarylevels (Shor, 1988).22InstructionThis role of computers in education is viewed from two different directions: the use ofcomputers for instruction and instruction about computers. In the first, computers are used as tools foreverything from simple drill-and-practice programs to total delivery systems that teach the material andevaluate students' achievement. In the second, the computer is the object of study. This includes every-thing from computer literacy courses to specific computer-related courses in computer science or en-gineering.Use of computers for instruction. The use of computers for instruction has probably been themost controversial aspect of computers in education because of all the disagreement it has created amongauthors. The literature shows the constant conflicts created by the high expectations from the computeras the ultimate teaching/learning tool on one side, and increasing needs for measurable results on theother.Experts agree that computers have great potential for instruction, and that they offer thecapabilities needed for individualized and self-directed instruction, as well as for creating new andexciting ways of learning (NTFET, 1986; Papert, 1980, 1987). Becker (1982) explains that one of the mostinteresting features of the computer is its interactiveness, which provides the potential capacity ofdiagnosing student error patterns and providing corrective tutorial instruction. A special report to theSecretary of Education of the United States, the National Task Force on Educational Technology, isrrFET,concluded that computers are creating new teaching and learning methods that help fulfill individuallearning needs (wrFEr, 1986). It also stated that "students often work more effectively together whencomputers are involved" (p. 60), emphasizing the positive influence of computers in two (oftenconflicting) approaches to instruction: individualized learning and cooperative learning (Carter, 1990;NTFET, 1986; Papert, 1987).23But for all the excitement that computers have generated in this aspect of education, it has beendifficult to identify improvements of instruction linked to the introduction of computers into the learningenvironment. Literature on the subject shows conflicting evidence about the results of research on thearea of computer-assisted instruction. The rriTur report is definitely optimistic but cautionary, illustratingpositive results of research in several areas of computer-assisted instruction at all levels of education(NTFET, 1986). However, other authors maintain that most research and experience on the use ofcomputing technology, instead of conventional instructional practices, shows little or no effect onstudents' achievement (Becker, 1982; Blankenship, 1985; Marshall, 1984; Pogrow, 1990).There are many reasons that might explain the limited achievements and mixed outcomesidentified in instructional uses of computers. As Mecklenburger (1990) explains, it may be too soon toassess with accuracy the merits of computing in instruction. One of the main factors influencing thissituation is that, even though the number of computers in educational institutions is increasing rapidly,the number of computers available is still relatively small. A specific problem to overcome is the contrastbetween the computer's capacity to interact with one student and the group-based nature of theeducational system (Becker, 1982). Although computers are found in classrooms at all levels ofeducation in ever-increasing numbers, it is evident that in order for clear and strong benefits of the use ofcomputers for instruction to be evident, the numbers of computers per student must increase even more.Other factors have also been identified as contributors to slow progress in the area. Some ofthese factors are: lack of planning in instructional implementations, inequitable distribution of computers,and inadequacy of available educational software (NTFET, 1986; O'Neil, 1990; Papert, 1987).Even with all the controversy surrounding instructional uses of educational technology,computers are being used for instructional purposes in many ways, particularly at the primary andsecondary levels. Terms such as "computer-assisted instruction", "computer-managed instruction", and"computer-based instruction" have become common-place in schools. Among the most popular uses of24microcomputers in schools are drill-and-practice applications at the elementary level, and programmingat both the elementary and secondary levels (Becker, 1983; Becker & Sterling, 1987). Programming isused both as a basic and high-level skills development tool—with programming languages such astoco—in elementary education, and as a high-skills development tool and computer literacy tool insecondary education (Becker, 1983; Chan, 1990; NTFET, 1986).However, by far the most exciting results of instructional uses of computers have been found inimplementations that focus on exploiting the potential of computers to support in-classroom activ-ities. These programs usually involve the student with the use of computers and related technologies astools to achieve program goals (Carter, 1990; O'Neil, 1990).In higher education, instructional software packages have been used in the past, but haveproved to be impractical. However, the shift to desktop computing over the last decade has created agreat demand for instructional software. The demand for software packages oriented toward highereducation has yet to be fulfilled (NTFET, 1986), however, because as Gilbert and Green (1986a) point out,the instructional needs of higher education are qualitatively different from those of elementary andsecondary education, for which the majority of instructional software is designed.The impact of using computers for instructional purposes has been difficult to measure. Someauthors have expressed the need for research specifically aimed at designing adequate measurementtools if we are to use educational technology efficiently for instruction (Becker, 1983; NTFET, 1986). Othersmaintain that a possible explanation for the limited effect of computers in the instructional process is thatno models for applying this technology are available, underlining the need for well-conceived theoreticalor research-based teacher-training models and implementation strategies for educating teachers about theinstructional uses of microcomputers (Becker, 1983; Jacobs, 1985; Sutphin, 1987).25Instruction about computers. In this mode, the computer is the subject of instruction. The needfor this kind of instruction is the result of introducing computer technology to a society not familiar withthis technology. Computer literacy, in its many dimensions discussed earlier in this chapter, is the mainobjective of this role of computers in education.In the past, instruction about computers was reserved for personnel dedicated to scientificresearch in the few computer-using institutions that existed. As computers spread to many, diverseapplications in educational institutions, the need for teaching personnel and students about computersbecame greater. With the relatively recent shift from centralized to de-centralized computing, morecomputing power has been put into the hands of a population unfamiliar with the technology, and thefocus of teaching about computing has changed again, this time to personal computing (Blankenship,1985; Gillespie, 1983).During the last decade, teaching about computers has become one of the most important uses ofcomputers at all levels of education. Introductory computer courses are popular in elementary andsecondary education and their popularity is increasing (Becker, 1984; Marino Drews, 1988). In highereducation, there are various examples of implementations of different university-wide computer literacycourses, such as those dealing with basic knowledge of computing and included in first-year curricula.The increasing number of computer courses in elementary and secondary education is forcingyet another change in the focus of instruction about computers. For example, as Gilbert & Green (1986a)report, there is a clear increase in the number of freshmen reporting programming experience during theyear prior to entering college in the United States, from 27 percent in 1983, to 51 percent in 1985. Thistrend is making educational institutions shift from the actual instructional focus to a "computer as a tool"approach, at all levels of education.26ProductivityPersonal productivity refers to the use of off-the-shelf computer applications—as opposed tocustom-programmed applications—to enhance personal productivity. These applications generally in-clude five areas of personal computing: word processing, spreadsheet, graphics, database management,and communications. They can be used in many different areas of work, and are available for practicallyevery personal computer system on the market.The use of computers as tools for supporting the other two aspects or roles of computers ineducation is very common, making a clear definition of the boundaries of each aspect difficult. Gilbert &Green (1986a) stated that off-the-shelf applications are often used for instructional purposes; that is,applications are used in the classroom as tools to teach or demonstrate concepts relevant to a specificsubject, such as a business course (Collier et al., 1987, Dumdell, Macleod & Siann, 1987, Fitzgerald, 1983),a physics course (GOmez Moreno, 1989), or the use of an educational program purchased from a soft-ware vendor. Off-the-shelf applications such as communications, databases, and statistical packages arealso used as tools for the information aspect of computers in education (Gilbert & Green, 1986a). For thepurpose of this thesis, these uses of computers are considered instructional and information applicationsof computers, respectively, rather that productivity applications.As Gilbert and Green (1986a) explain, the use of computer applications for personal productivityis relatively recent. In the past, computing services were highly centralized and relied mainly on main-frame computers, generally regarded as inadequate for use as personal productivity tools because of thecomplicated nature of their operating systems and a lack of general-purpose applications such as theones mentioned before (Gilbert & Green, 1986a; Gillespie, 1983).The use of computers as productivity tools is spreading fast in educational institutions. Inelementary and secondary education, the use of computers for instructional purposes has been pre-dominant for the past decade (Becker, 1982), but some authors suggest that eventually the use of27computers as tools would prevail in schools (Bork, 1984; Chan, 1990). In higher education in particular,the use of the computer as a productivity tool is widespread in all areas. Word processing is themost-used productivity application, used by students, professors, and faculty members, for all kinds ofpapers, assignments, reports, memos, and other written documents. Other applications, such as graphics,database, and spreadsheet, although not as popular as word processing, are widely used to enhanceproductivity in many areas (Gilbert & Green, 1986a).Characteristics of Educational ComputingAlthough the status of educational technology is always changing, through a review of theliterature it is possible to identify several characteristics and trends that educational computing generallypresents. Six characteristics relevant to this study were identified: lack of planning, equity issues,inadequate software, the need for integrating the computer in the curriculum, teacher training, andincreased effectiveness of computers in education.Lack of PlanningThe National Task Force on Educational Technology (1986), emphasizes in its recommendationsthe importance of planning when introducing computing technology in educational institutions by statingthat:The effective use of technology in education requires careful planning at every level ofthe educational system. The needs of our rapidly changing society cannot be met, norcan available resources be employed optimally, if technology is allowed to percolaterandomly through the school system. It is not intended that the technology be allowedto determine educational goals, but must be used to help achieve them (p. 63).Lack of planning is one of the most obvious problems affecting educational implementations ofcomputing technology (Brine & Johnson, 1990a; Carter, 1990; Gillespie, 1983; Sybouts & Stevens,281986). Many educational institutions devote most of their planning time to discussions about what kindof equipment should be bought, instead of discussing other more important matters such as what to dowith the computers once they arrive or what educational outcomes are expected from them (Gilbert &Green, 1986a; Gillespie, 1983; Sybouts & Stevens, 1986).One of the most emphasized planning issues is the need to focus on educational goals, ratherthan on the potential of computers in education (Brine & Johnson, 1990a; Hasset, 1984; Kay, 1989;Moont, 1984; Scheffler, 1986; Sutphin, 1987). Experts agree that the most appropriate implementationsand uses of educational computing can be identified in those cases where careful planning based oneducational goals has been undertaken (NTFET, 1986; O'Neil, 1990).There are many examples of the interest in careful planning for the introduction of computersinto educational programs. Authors such as Graham and Karlsson (1987), and Mudd and Wilson (1987)have proposed different approaches to planning for the implementation of educational computing, in theform of strategies or step-by-step plans. These plans or strategies are generally based on personalexperience by these authors, however, and models based on sound research are difficult to find.Inequitable Access to ComputingThe introduction of computers in education has raised equity issues. Advocates of the newtechnology insist that the computer is a great tool for increasing the general level of literacy amongchildren through their involvement with computers in their classrooms (Lapointe & Martinez, 1988). Otherauthors state, however, that computer technology is being implemented at a much faster rate in wealthiereducational institutions, in effect widening the gap between the rich and the poor (NFFET, 1986; O'Neil,1990). Research shows that low-income students in city schools do not have the same level and qualityof computer education as their counterparts in suburban and private schools (Becker & Sterling, 1987;Chadwick, 1983; NTFET, 1986; O'Neil, 1990). Research conducted by the National Assessment of Educa-29tional Progress shows that computer competence is clearly related to computer instruction and to accessto computers at home (Lapointe & Martinez, 1988). Lapointe & Martinez state that "Students who haveaccess to computers in school and at home stand a better chance of developing computer skills than dotheir not-so-advantaged peers" (p. 60).In higher education, the problem of inequitable distribution of computing technology is alsoevident, but presents substantially different characteristics than in elementary or secondary institutions.Gilbert and Green (1986a) explain that access to computing technology is often affected by the vendors'preferences. According to them, elite private and large public universities are usually the beneficiaries ofgifts and the advantageous pricing that the industry might offer, while state and community colleges thatappear less wealthy are overlooked. Gilbert and Green (1986a) state, however, that as the cost ofcomputing equipment continues to decrease, more universities are able to purchase more equipment andestablish better relationships with vendors.Another characteristic unique to higher education is the fact that it is much easier for privateinstitutions to engage in beneficial relationships with vendors than can state and community colleges,which are the ones that serve the majority of students (Gilbert & Green, 1986a). In the United States, forexample, state regulations and laws limit these universities' ability to enter into resale agreements, ordevelop implementation plans in cooperation with only one vendor.Inadequate SoftwareThe importance of software in education is underlined by the fact that hardware cannot be usedto its full potential without effective software, and that software can require a major investment of stafftime and money (NACUBO, 1986). While the power and quality of computer hardware continues toimprove exponentially, it is clear that educational software has not kept pace.Bork (1984) explains that although the number of educational software packages continues to30grow, the quality of these packages is generally very low. The reasons for this low quality are varied, butauthors tend to agree in that it is much more a consequence of the lack of resources put into the designand programming of good curricular-oriented instructional software on the part of software developersthan lack of interest in the field (Bork, 1984; Gilbert & Green, 1986a; NIFET, 1987).While the number of good-quality instructional applications available is increasing, particularlyin elementary and secondary education, the attitude of educational institutions—which keep paying littleattention to the quality of instructional software—along with the high development costs of instructionalsoftware and uncertain investment returns for the developers, make the future of good instructionalsoftware unrealizable in the near future (Bork, 1984; Gilbert & Green, 1986a).Need for Integrating Computers to the CurriculumNo technology will have the desired effects if its implementation does not include appropriatechanges in the curriculum. According to the literature, computer technology is usually implementedaround existing curricula in such a manner that students are exposed to the technology in no significantway, with the possible exception of the effects that direct contact with this technology for very limitedperiods of time can achieve (O'Neil, 1990).Brine and Johnson (1990a) explain that for a successful implementation of any technology totake place, a careful analysis of the needs should be made. This needs assessment process "emphasizesthe goals of the curriculum and not the specific technologies through which the curriculum is intended tobe taught" (p. 25). Integration of computers in the curriculum does not mean adjusting the latter to someassumed potential of computers, but rather utilizing the computer's proven potential in those areas of thecurriculum where it can be used effectively to achieve the desired objectives. Also, curriculum guidelinesand contents must be structured in a way that permits adjustments to changing technology (Sutphin, 1987).31Teacher TrainingThe introduction of computer technology in any educational setting must be accompanied bystaff development and training in the use of this technology. Janssen Reinen and Plomp (1992) explainthat "teachers need to learn new roles in order to work effectively with new programs and technologies",and that "staff development and training is one of the factors that determine success of implementing aninnovation in educational practice." For educational computing programs to be successful, computersmust be integrated into existing curricula (O'Neil, 1990), and if that is to be accomplished, teachertraining must be considered a priority.Experts contend, however, that this has not been the case, that teachers have not been given thesupport they need to make it so, and that teacher access and use of computing technology is very limited(Mecklenburger, 1990; Janssen Reinen & Plomp, 1992; O'Neil, 1990). Teachers must learn how to usecomputing tools effectively across the three aspects of educational computing discussed in the previoussection. However, as an example of how far this goal still is from reality, a report by the Office ofTechnology Assessment found that although nearly every school in the United States has at least onecomputer, half of all teachers have never used one (O'Neil, 1990).The results of that study follow the same pattern as a series of studies conducted by Stevens(1984) on the perceptions and expectations of teachers, teacher educators, and student teachers inNebraska. Stevens stated that "educators surveyed perceived that computers would strongly influenceclassroom instruction and the curriculum but not in their classrooms [italics added]" (p. 265), indicatingthat access to technology is not the only problem facing educational computing training programs.In addition, the data presented by Stevens (1984) strongly suggests that training teachers to teachwith computers and about computers is imperative. In this regard Becker (1983) warns that, whileteachers must be encouraged to learn about educational technology, development of a critical per-spective to computers in education is a must in training programs.32The literature shows clear agreement as to the relevance of teacher training courses and yetsome uncertainty as to what the contents of these courses should be. One of the masons behind thisdisagreement may lie in the "computer literacy" nature of these courses. Furthermore, many student-teacher courses have been deemed inadequate, putting too much emphasis on programming. Otherproblems are based on the fact that in many cases training courses currently offered to teachers are taughtby computer vendors, who can do an acceptable job of teaching user skills but who do not have thenecessary knowledge about instructional techniques or methodology to satisfy the special needs ofteachers (Agee, 1985).Sutphin (1987) proposes a more systematic approach, based on a thorough training strategydeveloped at Cornell University. The three core components of this training program are conceptualunderstanding, technical skills, and application skills, supported by other clearly-defined operativecomponents. The first component of Sutphin's program centers on the basic concepts of the use ofcomputers in education, how to teach with them, and use them as management tools. The second maybe taught concurrently with the first, and concentrates on learning everything from evaluation and use ofeducational software to the use of productivity applications and programming at an advanced level. Thethird emphasizes the actual application of the concepts and skills learned in the first two stages to theteacher's subject area, placing special attention on educational objectives, rather than technical ones. Theliterature shows other examples of proposed contents for computer literacy courses for teachers;Sutphin's model is mentioned here as an example of a well-conceived training strategy based on relatedresearch that focuses on educational goals rather than technological ones.Increased EffectivenessThem is still great controversy as to whether or not computers are effective tools for education.Judging from the literature, it would seem that many authors' opinions about educational computing33depend to a great extent on what their personal experiences have been. A more detailed analysis of theliterature shows that computers have had positive influences in many areas of education, particularly inthe areas of information and productivity, as previously defined in this chapter, and not as much in theinstructional aspect of education.Some experts agree that the effectiveness of educational technology has improved significantly.They explain that the availability of computing has been growing, and so has been its acceptance. Fur-thermore, computing technology has evolved greatly over the last decade, and today's computers providemultimedia capabilities that will probably eliminate many of the limitations that some claim pose themain problem to educational software development (Becker, 1983; Carter, 1990; rum, 1986; O'Neil,1990).Whether or not computers are or will become accepted globally as effective tools for instructionis unknown, but encouraging results have been obtained by shifting the focus from simple applications,to learning the basics of computers, to curriculum-integrated instructional uses of the technology, par-ticularly in those cases where proper planning has been undertaken and adequate training is evident(MITT, 1986; O'Neil, 1990).Computing in Higher EducationBoth the roles of computers in education and the characteristics of educational computingdiscussed in the previous sections apply to elementary, secondary, and higher education. However,higher education presents some unique characteristics related to the use of computing technology thatare examined in this section.First, the introduction of computers in higher education followed a very different path than inbasic education. Computers have been used for scientific and research purposes in higher educationinstitutions for forty years, initially in a computing environment that was centralized and offered limited34access to the non-scientific community. The evolution of computer technology brought about changes inhigher education computing, and computer use began to spread across all faculties, initiating a trendtoward de-centralized campus computing. In the end, both de-centralized and centralized computing arenow essential parts of higher education computing, and the challenge seems to be finding the appropri-ate ways to provide, manage, and support both kinds of computing services (Blankenship, 1985;Dockerill, 1987).In recent years, these changes have shifted the focus on computers from a centralized view to aview of computers as a universal tools (Gillespie, 1983). Students entering universities are more comput-er literate than ever before, faculty and administrators are discovering the power of applications such asword processing and spreadsheets, and the demand for computer services has become greater than thesupply (Blankenship, 1985; Gillespie, 1983).A unique characteristic of computers in higher education is the increasing number of university-industry relationships. Since computers started being used in higher education institutions, industry hasplayed a major role in supporting their introduction and use. Some authors emphasize this aspect ofhigher education computing because historically, universities and industry have shown a very interestingmutual dependency. As Gilbert & Green (1986a) explain, most of the technology sold by vendors hasbeen developed in universities, which in turn cannot afford large-scale implementation and use of thelatest technology needed for research and development without the support of vendors—in the form ofdonations, joint projects, or long-term purchase plans—particularly in difficult economic times(Blankenship, 1985; Gilbert & Green, 1986a; NITET, 1987).However, while financial difficulties and problems with the availability of hardware are deemedto be major problems by most authors, others suggest that the biggest problem facing higher educationcomputing is the scarcity of adequate human resources (Graham & Karlsson, 1987). This problem isaccentuated because, as the demand for computer-related personnel increases, the number of students35registering for computer-related fields also increases, and universities find themselves competing in themarketplace for human resources to fulfill classroom and research needs (Blankenship, 1985; Graham &Karlsson, 1987).Attitudes toward ComputersThroughout this study, special attention is paid to certain particular aspects of the introduction ofeducational computing in Dominican Republic higher education. One of these aspects is the availabilityand adequacy of human resources, which play a key role in the proper development of such tech-nologies. In particular, the role of professors in the introduction and use of computers is examined, aswell as their attitude toward learning and working with this technology.Many authors agree in that the introduction of computers can only succeed if the recipients ofthis technology agree that it is worthwhile to learn and use it (Loyd & Gressard, 1984a; Loyd & Loyd,1985; Pelgrum & Plomp, 1991; Vermette, Orr, & Hall, 1986; Woodrow, 1987). Although these authorsconcentrate in the uses of computers in elementary and secondary education, there is no reason tobelieve their conclusions will not hold true for the success of instructional implementations of computersin higher education. Woodrow (1987) states that the need for acceptance and understanding of the newtechnology is even more important for its success if its introduction requires the acquisition of newknowledge and skills.Many different factors have been found to affect attitudes toward learning about and workingwith computers. Loyd and Gressard (1984a) explain that:"Three types of attitudes toward computers were considered important enough to havesignificant effect on student achievement: (a) computer anxiety, consisting of anxietytoward or fear of computers or learning to use computers; (b) computer confidence,related to confidence in the ability to learn about or use computers; and (c) computerliking, meaning enjoyment or liking of computers and using computers." (p. 68)36In general, positive attitudes toward computers have been related to the amount of experienceusing computers (Loyd & Gressard, 1984a; Loyd & Loyd, 1985), while negative attitudes have been foundto correlate with higher levels of fear or anxiety about computers (Bohlin, 1992). Computer anxiety inparticular, has been the subject of more attention recently, and Bolhin (1992) explains that several studiesshow that instruction can, in fact, reduce computer anxiety in most learners. His study also shows thatconfidence in one's ability to successfully use and cope with computers would be expected to relate tolower anxiety toward them.Educational Computing in Latin AmericaAlthough the underlying concepts of educational computing presented in the previous sectionapply, in general, to any setting, some characteristics of developing regions affect the way these conceptsare used and implemented. This section focuses on educational computing as it is understood andapplied in Latin America and the third world. A background on education in developing countries ispresented first, concentrating on the Dominican Republic. Second, an analysis of computer literacy as itapplies to the region is presented, followed by an examination of the literature on transfer of technology.Finally, three main aspects of the implementation of computing technology—physical, logical, and hu-man resources—and their current status in Latin America are discussed.Background on Education in Latin AmericaThis study is an attempt to assess the current status of educational computing in highereducation in the Dominican Republic, a developing Latin American country. The importance of lookingat educational issues in Latin America—and in the Dominican Republic in particular—from a Latin Amer-ican perspective rather than from the point of view of a developed country, cannot be overemphasized.An understanding of some aspects of education, research, culture, and economy is essential to describe37the environment in which educational computing is evolving in these countries. This section reviews theliterature regarding these aspects as they relate to educational computing in Latin American countries.Problems with EducationThe problems affecting education in Latin America are much the same as in most third worldcountries. Authors tend to agree that the major problems affecting the quality of education negatively inthese countries are directly related to social mobilization, inadequate educational resources, growingschool populations, and the overwhelming economic crisis they experience (Chadwick, 1986; Gallegos,1984; Hungwe, 1989; Fuller & Heyneman, 1989).Gallegos (1984) asserts that social migration from rural to urban areas in many third worldcountries contributes to the deterioration of education in these countries. He explains that "rural educa-tional problems contribute to a growing national dilemma of limited and marginal educational opportu-nities in the villages and overcrowded and low-quality education in the cities" (p. 38). The consequentialsocioeconomic de-stabilization of many families in Latin America may be a major contributor to thedeclining quality of education, since the home environment has been suggested as having the greatestinfluence on language development, general learning ability, and motivation for success in school(Gallegos, 1984).Some authors highlight relatively large allocations of economic resources to education in manythird world countries (Gallegos, 1984; Hungwe, 1989). However, recent reports from the World Bankcited in Fuller and Heyneman (1989), testify to the fact that the share of all government spending allocat-ed to education has fallen over the last two decades and continues to do so. The main contributing factorto this situation is the growth of population and enrollment combined with the actual economic crisisexperienced by these countries. In addition to that, Fuller and Heyneman (1989) point to the poorallocation of resources as a major problem. In most third world countries, 95 percent of the educational38budget is allocated to teacher salaries, yet very few studies have found that variation in teachers' salariesis related to pupil achievement.In the Dominican Republic, sources suggest a decline in the quality of education at all levels ofeducation (Crespo, 1990). Lora (1984) described a number of problems both internal and external tothe higher education system—that have been affecting the quality of higher education in the DominicanRepublic over the last two decades. A summary of these follows.External problems. A first problem mentioned by Lora (1984) is the low academic achievementlevel of those students entering higher education which generates high desertion rates through the firstyears of university education. It has also forced several universities to institute a remedial one-yearperiod now commonly known as cu, short for Colegio Universitario (University School). This lowlevel of academic achievement in pre-university levels was evident in the study The Teaching andLearning of Mathematics in the Dominican Republic (Luna & GonzAlez, 1984), and again in thestudy Mathematics Achievement in the Dominican Republic: Grade 12 (Crespo, 1990), in which theMathematics achievement levels of Grade 8 and Grade 12 students, respectively, were found to be wellbelow the international levels obtained through similar studies conducted worldwide. According to Lora(1984), this problem is a consequence of insufficient funding for education, a general growth of theschool-age population at all levels, and insufficient or inadequate physical resources.A second problem is that students finishing secondary education are strongly oriented towardseeking a post-secondary degree before entering the workforce (Lora, 1984). This puts pressure onhigher education institutions, many of which have a policy of free admission which affects the quality oftheir academic labor. According to the summary report DiagnOstico del Sector Educativo (Diagnosticof the Educational Sector), approximately 85 percent of secondary school graduates pursued highereducation in 1984 (SEEBAC, 1984).39The lack of a national policy on higher education, discussed previously in Chapter 1, is anotherproblem mentioned by Lora (1984). This situation has driven many universities to develop guidelinesbased on their own assessment of the country's needs or, in many cases, their own financialconsiderations. This freewill attitude often leads to wasted efforts and resources, market saturation insome fields, professional frustration, and non-satisfaction of the country's needs for human resources.Two other external problems are identified by Lora (1984): an underestimation of mid-leveltechnical careers, as opposed to more traditional careers such as engineering or medicine, and theenormous pressure exerted on higher education by the increasing demand for this kind of education.The Rector of the PUCMM explained it as follows:By 1992 we might find ourselves with a demand of 400,000 university students, anumber that will not be possible to serve, and in addition to that, it is questionable if weshould dedicate resources to university students in already saturated areas. As anexample, Colombia, with 28 million inhabitants, now has less than 400,000 universitystudents (Cited in Lora, 1984, p. 56).The increasing demand for higher education stems from socio-cultural factors that are notuncommon in Latin American countries. Two of these factors are: the increasing school population thatgenerates an increasing number of students leaving secondary schools, and the fact that higher educationis widely regarded as a means of ascending the social and economic ladder (Lora, 1984; Mejia, 1988).Lora (1984) explains that this overwhelming demand for higher education has affected the academicquality of such institutions adversely, because institutions are operating without having adequate basicfacilities, qualified professors, and with a policy of free admission.Internal problems. Lora (1984) identifies four internal problems that affect higher education inthe Dominican Republic: lack of human resources, inadequate curricula, lack of research, and lack offinancial resources. The lack of qualified human resources has been identified by many authors as a40major problem in third world countries, and one closely related to the very low salaries and lack ofworking incentives offered by the educational profession (Alvarez et al., 1985; Hungwe, 1989; Marshall,1984; Palmer, 1986). Many professors are underqualified, many are not education professionals, andmost of them work part-time and cannot dedicate sufficient time to the preparation of their classes orother educational activities.According to Lora (1984), the established curricula are, in many cases, inadequate; most uni-versities lack the planning and research needed to develop adequate curricula that coordinate de-partmental policy with the perceived needs of the professional market. In addition to that, authors suchas Blankenship (1985), Kling (1983), and Magendzo Kolstrein (1987) state that changes to curricula areparticularly important when dealing with educational technology. Research is not practiced in many ofthe universities, mainly because of financial, human, and physical limitations. Finally, the lack of fi-nancial resources is categorized by Lora (1984) as a "suprafactor", because it affects all other factorspreviously discussed.Research in Latin AmericaAlthough educational research has had a slow development in Latin America, a growth ineducational research activity since the mid-seventies has been reported by Schiefelbein (1978), Egginton(1983), and Chadwick (1986). In an analysis of reviewers' assessments of all publications on LatinAmerican education included in the Handbook of Latin American Studies, Egginton (1983) stated that"publications on Latin American education are far-ranging and disparate" (p. 126). He concludes thatwhile the quality of research in the area has been uneven, some progress is being made.Chadwick (1986) stated that instructional research efforts in Latin America are still few in numberand developmental in nature. The specific area of educational technology has received significantattention over the last few years, but mostly in the form of articles in journals while the number of41research studies is limited. The main approach is the replication of studies done in other countries,basically aimed at determining if findings from other studies apply to Latin American countries aswell. According to Chadwick (1986), studies related to technology transfer have been regarded asimportant because they analyze potential problems associated with importing technology from de-veloped countries, as well as cultural and other factors involved in the process.The Dominican Republic does not seem to be an exception regarding the need for additionaleducational research expressed by authors in the field of educational technology (Chadwick, 1986;Egginton, 1983; NIVET, 1986; Schiefelbein, 1978). In a survey conducted in 1988, "fostering and de-veloping research" in Dominican universities was ranked third out of the five most important goals thatDominican universities should commit to in order to achieve their mission in society (Zapata, 1988).Research is not widely practiced, however, and most of it is centered on analysis of the performance ofthe educational system (Fernandez, 1990).In the Dominican Republic in particular, many universities do not conduct any research activity,a practice that affects academic quality negatively. Reasons behind this are lack of financial support,physical resources, and human resources. But above all there is a lack of long-term policies on researchthat would otherwise encourage personnel to engage in those kinds of activities (Lora, 1984).Alemgn (1988) estimated the number of educational researchers in the Dominican Republic as 66during the 1980 to 1985 period. In a recently conducted seminar in Santo Domingo, Union Latina, aFrench-sponsored organization, estimated the number of researchers in the Dominican Republic to be300, including independent research agencies based in the country, as well as researchers working forprivate institutions (Pimienta, 1991). The bulk of the research is conducted by students in the uni-versities, as requisite for their degrees, and most of this work remains unpublished (Fernandez, 1990).The reasons for the slow development of research in Latin American countries are varied.Mardi° Drews (1988) suggests that one of the main reasons is the difficulty that researchers encounter in42obtaining updated information, as well as the high cost of processing this information. In this regard,Pimienta (1991) stresses the importance of developing computerized research information networks.While some countries in Latin America have developed national research networks, this is not the casewith the majority of countries; and most of these networks lack the necessary facilities—such ascomputers and adequate communication infrastructure—to make them available regionally.Several projects are underway which are directly aimed at developing nation-wide or region-wide computerized networks. One such project, the Red de America Latina y el Caribe, REDALC (LatinAmerican and Caribbean Network), unveiled during the previously mentioned Union Latina seminar, isintended to assist in the development of a Latin America-wide research network. Another similar projectis the InterNet/LAciue network described by Oeffinger (1987), involving institutions in Brazil, Chile, CostaRica, Mexico, Uruguay, Venezuela, and the United States. However, most of these projects are in a de-velopmental stage, and no results can be expected for some time (Pimienta, 1991).Some authors state cautiously that even if these projects are successful, there is no guarantee thatthe quality of research will improve, given that these information networks are simply tools that, whileuseful, will not create a tradition for research by themselves. The need will still exist for changes in thebasic structures of educational systems in the region so that research is better understood, desired, andsupported with adequate resources (Chadwick, 1986; Soto Bello, 1984).In addition to the problems with access to information, Maririo Drews (1988) mentions the lackof personnel with appropriate preparation in research-oriented activities as an important factor hinderingresearch activity. Both Chadwick (1986) and Fernandez (1990) state that the lack of a tradition forresearch work is a major factor impeding the development of a research culture. Latin American coun-tries seem to view research strictly as a long-term tool in an environment where short-term solutions aremost desperately needed. Institutions fail to recognize the importance of local research for future de-velopment. One factor not mentioned by many authors is the issue of funding for research in Latin43America. Chadwick (1986) states that lack of funding is the primary restraint on educational technologyresearch in the region.Cultural and Economic IssuesAmong the most significant factors affecting the quality of education in Latin America—and thirdworld countries in general—are the cultural variations found in the different countries of the region, andthe prevalent economic crisis they must endure. These two factors permeate every other aspect of educa-tion, as discussed in the previous sections.On the question of economy, the foreign debt—accounting for approximately $145 billion us.dollars paid to industrialized countries from 1982 to 1987—is the main cause of the economic collapse ofLatin America (Latapi, 1990), and "has decimated governments' capacity to support basic education"(Fuller & Heyneman, 1989, p. 13). The economic crisis is probably the major factor affecting all otheraspects of educational development, resulting in an overall decline of the quality of education at alllevels. Fuller and Heyneman (1989) observe that unless fundamental economic changes occur, efforts toimprove school quality will have little effect, because students' low performance is primarily a con-sequence of children's impoverished out-of-school settings.The other factor in the educational development of Latin American countries is the culture.According to Lennon (1988), the outcome of the transmission of knowledge in school depends to a largeextent on the cultural characteristics of the students, and special attention must be paid to thesecharacteristics in order to understand these countries' educational settings. Lennon (1988) stresses thatthe cultural differences among countries are not only the ones usually described as "ethnic", but thatthose differences deriving from economic and social divisions must also be considered, "for livingconditions influence ways of behaving and thinking, as do ethnic characteristics" (p. 414).The Dominican Republic is not an exception to the economic problems of the region, and44certain characteristics of the country work against quick solutions to those problems (Lora, 1984). First,an explosive population growth that drove Dominican population from 3 million in 1960 to 6 million in1981, to about 8 million today. Second, a massive migration from rural to urban areas that has created anumber of problems in the capital city of Santo Domingo. Third, the Dominican Republic is a countrywhose economy is basically agricultural, without commercially-exploitable energy resources. By 1984,the foreign debt was approximately 3 billion dollars.Computer Literacy in the Third WorldAlthough developing countries are well behind their developed counterparts in many aspects ofcomputing, the introduction of computing technology seems as unavoidable in these countries as it hasbeen in developed countries (Galvis, 1987; Marshall, 1984; Palmer, 1986). It is becoming obvious thatmost people will need at least some knowledge about computers, but the scope of the knowledgeneeded varies from one environment to another, according to what Mariiio Drews (1988) refers to ascultura computacional (computing culture). The application of the concepts of computer literacydepends strongly on the cultural, economic, and industrial development of each country and thus willaffect developed and developing countries differently. The definitions of computer literacy previouslydiscussed in this chapter may be valid for developed countries in which information technology hasachieved wide acceptance. However, this is not necessarily the case in countries that are far behind incomputing technology, and in which other social and economic matters have higher priority. MarifioDrews (1988) examined three different areas in which computer literacy should be pursued in developingnations: computer literacy for the workplace, the development of specialists in different areas ofcomputer science, and the implementation of computer literacy in educational institutions.45Computer Literacy in the WorkplaceThe business community in developing countries has a critical role to play in the development ofcomputing technology (Alvarez et al., 1985; Galvis, 1987). As Alvarez et al. (1985) explain, the businesscommunity can significantly influence the development of computing technology. The levels of comput-er sophistication in some companies are far higher than found in educational systems, and therefore, thebusiness community is increasingly demanding qualified, "computer literate" personnel. This growingdemand for qualified personnel and the lack of established means to satisfy it highlights the need for aspecial kind of computer literacy oriented to the workplace.Computer literacy efforts for the business community, according to Marino Drews (1988), shouldbe linked to, but not limited to, the learner's field of work. They should also stress knowledge andunderstanding of the computer as a tool, in order for the learner to be able to use the computer to its fullpotential. This approach to computer literacy is not unlike the "individual needs" approach discussedearlier in this chapter. It differs somewhat in that it clearly specifies the need for making the computer atool that the user comprehends and can use appropriately.However, the scarcity of computers throughout educational systems in developing countries,makes the goal of widespread computer literacy difficult to achieve at best. Palmer (1986) states that,with the exception of professionals in the areas of computer science or systems analysis, most develop-ment of computer literacy has come mainly from the business community itself, in the form of in-housetraining, or technical computer courses from distributors and independent training institutions. Thismeans that computer education for the business community is almost exclusively under the control ofvendors and distributors, making standardization of computer literacy for the business communitydifficult (Galvis, 1987).46Computer Literacy SpecialistsThe literature shows that a few computer literacy projects have been implemented by teams ofcomputing technology specialists and educators working together (Carcamo, Le6n & Aristizabal, 1988;Chadwick, 1986; Galvis, 1988a). Some authors have proposed the training of educators on computingmatters as the basic solution to the implementation of computing technology in third world countries(Gilbert & Green, 1986a; Gillespie, 1983). As the field of educational technology matures, however, it isclear that specialized personnel will be needed to take on the task of redesigning educational systems indeveloping countries to accommodate new technologies and make the best use of computers.Although some of the individual efforts mentioned above have been successful, recent LatinAmerican authors such as Marino Drews (1988) and Rueda Fajardo (1988) suggest that interdisciplinaryteams will yield the best implementations of educational technology, whether the situation calls fordeveloping native educational computing solutions, or transferring foreign solutions to native educationalsettings. They warn, however, that having such a team does not ensure that good implementations ofeducational technology will be made. Other authors discuss additional problems that may affecteducational technology interventions negatively in developing countries, such as the inappropriatenessof instructional solutions, media, and technology, or the lack of front-end analysis (Chadwick, 1983;Hungwe, 1989; Weston, 1988).Computer literacy in EducationMost of the literature on computing literacy in education, particularly that coming from de-veloped countries, reflects on technology as it applies to primary and secondary education. Althoughthere is a notable growing interest in school-level computing in Latin America, the great majority ofcomputing tools are found in post-secondary educational institutions, while they are practicallynon-existent in primary and secondary schools.47Approaches to educational computing in post-secondary institutions differ significantly fromthose in primary and secondary levels, and they also differ between developing countries and developedcountries. Maririo Drews (1988) explains that the concept of computer literacy changes according to theperceived needs of the learner by the educational institution and the community, and according to thelevel of development and awareness that this community has about computing technology.Training in computer literacy in Latin American elementary education occurs almost exclusivelyat some private institutions. It has been enormously influenced by pressure from the social and industrialsectors, due to the strong perception that knowledge of computer technology leads to better paying jobs(Maririo Drews, 1988; Rojas Cortês, 1988). Programming, where available, has been taught for differentpurposes, concentrating on developing problem-solving and other basic cognitive skills, based on Sey-mour Papert's theories of learning with computers (Papert, 1980). In high school education, there is atrend toward teaching students to use general-purpose applications, but programming is still taughtprimarily with a market-oriented focus, such as for developing skills useful for acquiring better jobs. Inboth cases, however, the main factor determining the teaching of programming has been a strong per-ception on the part of parents that acquiring programming skills will prepare their children for an in-formation society (Alvarez et al., 1985; Marino Drews, 1988).In higher education, computers are used primarily for administrative and research purposes, andcomputer literacy remains mainly a career-specific concept, oriented to computer science and other tech-nical programs. It is only recently that some Latin American universities began to implement university-wide computer literacy curricula (Galvis, 1988b).Transfer of TechnologyThe topic of transfer of technology as a means of dealing with educational problems indeveloping countries has been studied extensively in the past decade, particularly in those cases48involving computing technology. Most authors agree that the impact of computers in education isinevitable even in developing countries, and that these countries should be aware of the different issuesregarding the import of educational technology (Harvey, 1983; Hungwe, 1989; Marshall, 1984). Thedependence of the third world on developed countries is widespread across most sectors of the economyand society, and Alvaro Galvis (1987) points out that foreign dependence is particularly dangerous for theeducational sector. As an example of how inadequate the indiscriminate transfer of technology can be,Galvis (1987) depicts the "magical vision" of computers as a panacea for Latin American educationalproblems as follows:A magical vision of educational computing may lead us to great disenchantment, as wasthe case of the gypsy's story in the book One Hundred Years of Solitude. GarciaMarquez tells that the Gypsies used to come to Macondo from time to time, bringingwith them the latest discoveries from the wise people of Memphis, that is, the latesttechnology. One year they arrived with ice, "such great invention of our time". Itsarrival was just the occasion for Jose Arcadio Buendia to find out the meaning of hisdreams about a mirror-walled house. Right away he got its deep meaning. He thoughtthat, in the near future, it would be possible to make blocks of ice in great scale, from aday to day material such as water and, by using them, to build the new houses of thevillage. Macondo would not be a hot place any more, where hinges and knockers weretwisted by the heat, but a frigid one! (p. 197).This kind of vision of the transfer of technology is common in non-technological societies whichare accustomed to importing products and finding uses for them, instead of looking at the underlyingdeveloping processes of those products and leaming from these. In this way, these societies depend onimported technological products, but do not have the technological expertise to build on these tech-nologies (Clayton, 1975; Galvis, 1987). There seems to be a clear consensus regarding this point: educa-tional technology transfer "as is" does not work because of the many differences among educationalsettings in different countries. The fact that a given technology works in one setting does not necessarilyimply that it will also work in another setting.49One of the major concerns that Latin American countries should have about the transfer of tech-nology lies in the cultural implications that this process involves:The process of selection and transmission of culture presupposes the formation of aparticular conscience... It is not a neutral process, and inevitably leads to certaindegree of manipulation of power and social control. (Magendzo Kolstrein, 1987, p.44)Many other authors, such as Kling (1983), Bowers (1988), and Brine and Johnson (1990b), agreethat computing developments, like other social, economic, and technical developments, are not sociallyneutral, and that every implementation has a certain degree of "politics" associated with it.Many authors have expressed concern about this ongoing process of importing technology fromdeveloped countries. Transfer of technology is very influential in most aspects of the development ofthird world countries, particularly in Latin America, and is generally regarded as a kind of technologicalcolonialism. The risk of neocolonialism seems to be even greater when this influence affects the culturaldevelopment of these countries by conditioning the educational system of these very traditional countries(Alvarez et al., 1985; Araujo de Oliveira, 1989; Correa, 1989; Harvey, 1983; Magendzo Kolstrein, 1987;Marshall, 1984). Gilbert and Green (1986a) and Collier et al. (1987) explain that while changes in otheraspects of education—such as curricula—are slow, the rapid development of computing technology andits acceptance by the business community puts pressure on educational institutions to provide upcomingprofessionals with the knowledge to take advantage of this technology. Furthermore, Galvis (1987)explains that this problem is even greater in developing countries, since educational computing seems tobe totally under the control of vendors, producers, and the general public, instead of educators.Planning is emphasized by many authors as the key to make transfer of technology work. Brineand Johnson (1990a) point out the importance of needs assessment if the introduction of any technologyto the educational setting is to be successful. Most problems with the transfer of educational technologyhave been identified as relating to lack of planning (Weston, 1988), and planning is particularly important50in the case of the introduction of educational computing tools in developing countries (Galvis, 1987;Harvey, 1983). Analysis of local needs should then be a priority before the implementation of any newtechnology can take place. Differences in culture, language, and educational systems require carefulexamination of the underlying principles of the educational computing tools available and their possibleuses in a specific educational setting (Weston, 1988).Developing countries appear to hope that the computer will solve all of their educationalproblems (Galvis, 1987; Hungwe, 1989); however, even if the tools are carefully revised to fit theirspecific educational system, they still might not work. Marshall (1984) states that no change in educa-tional technology in Latin America will yield the expected results unless major changes—such as changesin wages—take place. Galvis (1987) adds that what is needed when importing educational technology isa major focus on educational goals, rather than on technological goals.Authors seem to agree that appropriate personnel development when transferring technology isparticularly relevant in the case of educational computing, because of the sophisticated and changingnature of the field (Agee, 1985; Helms, 1985; Palmer, 1986; Sutphin, 1987). In order for any technology tobe successfully transferred, some training must take place among its intended implementers and users. Inthe case of computing technology, developing countries, including the Dominican Republic, are lackingin all aspects of computer literacy. Many teachers are unqualified or under-qualified, and training is verydifficult at best because of cultural and economic factors (Alvarez et al., 1985; Hungwe, 1989). Hungwestresses the importance of personnel development stating that, "As things stand, even if quality media andtechnology is placed in schools, it can only have minimal or no impact on teaching and learning" (p. 22).Chaudhry and Fakhro (1986) discuss other more practical problems associated with imple-menting computers in educational programs in third world countries. First, there is a lack of availabilityof hardware and quality service in places where authorized dealers are few and companies appear anddisappear without notice, due to the less-than-favorable economic conditions in most of these countries.51Second, educational software, regardless of its educational quality, is difficult to find. Most of what isavailable is created and marketed by companies in developed countries, with a specific educational set-ting and culture in mind, significantly different from third world countries'.Chaudhry and Fakhro (1986) also describe the obstacles presented by language. Some popularmicrocomputer business software packages created in developed countries have foreign-language ver-sions, and more often than not, the language does not represent an unsurmountable obstacle foraccounting or word processing applications. In education, however, language is extremely important,and while most educational software also comes from developed countries, these do not have foreign-language versions. This means that software must be translated—to Spanish, in Latin America's case—inorder to be usable; however, direct translation is not sufficient because it does not overcome the culturaldifferences that are embedded within the words. Chadwick (1986) stresses these differences in LatinAmerica's case by explaining that "when referring to Latin America one should not envision a homo-geneous area but 27 countries with more than 250 million people speaking five different languages, andwith highly diverse historical and cultural heritages" (p. 247).Computing Issues in Latin AmericaThe development of a computing culture requires that some essential resources exist to supporta sophisticated technology such as that of computers. A variety of obstacles are evident when imple-menting computing technology in Latin America, some of which relate to the transfer of technologypreviously discussed in this chapter. Other pressing problems exist in three main areas of technologyimplementation—physical resources, logical resources, and human resources. As Alvarez et al. (1985)explain, very little has been written about informatics and small computers in Latin America. Today thereis still relatively little literature available, especially in the area of education, but general characteristics ofthe region can be examined in some detail.52Physical ResourcesPhysical resources are essential for the implementation of computing technology. Most LatinAmerican countries experience hardware-related problems and obvious underdevelopment in at leastone of three key physical resources, namely their electrical power infrastructure, communication infra-structure, and their microelectronic industry.As previously explained, most of the computing technology in Latin America is imported fromdeveloped countries, and many Latin American countries have customs fees applied to imported goods,making the technology more expensive in these countries (Chadwick, 1986). Local support for repairand parts is very difficult to obtain, and particularly difficult to maintain, since major authorized dealersare few and many companies appear and disappear without notice (Chaudhry & Fakhro, 1986). It hasbeen suggested that this problem will eventually become less important thanks to the increasing numberof computer companies representatives in most countries (Alvarez et al., 1985).The lack of compatibility across computing platforms or brands—and even across models of thesame brand—has also been stated as a problem. However, this is becoming less relevant as new solu-tions for networking and communications become available, and multi-platform environment solutionsbecome popular. The problem is that solutions of this kind take too long or fail to reach some LatinAmerican countries, because of the lack of an adequate information infrastructure in many countries. Thelack of information seems to be a major problem in Latin America countries, particularly in computingmatters, and it is discussed in depth later in this section.Among the main physical issues to be considered is the problem of inadequate electricalinfrastructure, since computing equipment is very sensitive to variations in power supply. As Alvarez etal. (1985) explain, many Latin American countries have serious problems with providing adequate energyservice, and voltage variations, brownouts, and blackouts are common. Under acceptable circumstances,the problems of voltage variations or short blackouts can be solved by voltage regulators and uninterrup-53tible or stand-by power supply systems. These systems, which range from affordable to very expensiveitems by developed countries' standards, represent considerable and sometimes unsurmountableinvestments in developing countries.Another physical element needed for the development of computing technology is the avail-ability of an adequate communication infrastructure, essential to support the flow of electronic data. Thestate of telecommunications infrastructures in Latin America presents many cases of obsoleteness,although a few countries have state-of-the-art equipment and installations. The main problem is usuallythe age of the telecommunication distribution systems (Pimienta, 1991). This element is becomingincreasingly important in computing in an era where distributed systems, networking, remote-accesscomputing, and data processing seem to be the norm.The development of national microelectronics industries is another physical resource mentionedin the literature in various forms, and Latin American governments have shown some interest in de-veloping a domestic microelectronics industry. The focus of these interests has been on human resourcedevelopment, capitalization and investment of economic firms, and import restrictions. According toAlvarez et al. (1985), one area of primary concern is the influence of multi-national corporations on theuse of information technology and the effects of the control that certain social groups have over thistechnology, available only to those people with adequate funding.Human ResourcesAnother obstacle to the development of computing technology in Latin America, and one that isrelated to the problems of lack of information (discussed in the next section), is the scarcity of knowl-edgeable personnel in all areas of computing. Good technical support—one of the major factorsinvolved in computing—is difficult to find in Latin American countries, particularly for the educationalcommunity which does not compete favorably in the market against banks or multinational companies54which are usually the main employers of computer professionals (Chaudhry & Falduo, 1986; Palmer, 1986).Administrators and decision-makers who do not have this necessary support are potentiallyill-informed or not informed at all about the computing issues they are deciding upon, both in businessand in education. Hungwe (1989) explains that this imbalance is likely to worsen the rich-poor gapsituation in Latin America. He suggests that training the personnel involved with computing in education,for example, will help them acquire the knowledge required "to make choices, to innovate, and to select"(p. 23), and that in turn will help them attain a much better position to understand computing technologyand to help define their own computing culture.This leads into discussing the aspect of educating and training of personnel involved withcomputing technology. Practically every author in the field considers the problem of personnel trainingone of upmost priority, especially in the area of education (Alvarez et al., 1985; Galvis, 1987; Hungwe,1989; Marshall, 1984), but even if adequate personnel are available, training can prove to be a major task,requiring enormous amounts of resources that are just not available. Furthermore, Marshall (1984),explains that for training in computers to make sense in developing areas, there still is a considerable wayto go since a great percentage of the teaching population has little or no training in teaching itself.Logical ResourcesLogical resources refer to what the literature suggests as the two main problems that present thebiggest obstacles to the development and use of computing technology in Latin American countries:problems with software, and the poor distribution of information regarding information systems andcomputing technology in general.Several authors mention that one of the most obvious problems that affects computing in themajority of third world countries is that software packages are mostly available in English, as opposed toSpanish, let alone the native languages and dialects of many different Latin American countries (Alvarez55et al., 1985; Chaudhry & Fakhro, 1986; Palmer, 1986). The unavailability of software in the native lan-guages for educational applications renders most packages unsuitable for use in Latin American countrieswhen considering the cultural nature of education. Whenever possible, Palmer (1986) explains, English-speaking professors spend a considerable amount of time translating the educational material, but thesetranslations are few in number, usually underpaid and overloaded teachers. Furthermore, even when thematerial is properly translated and adapted, there is no guarantee as to their benefits for educational pur-poses.Another problem with software is the cost. Anybody involved in computing technology knowsthat the real cost of computing lies not in hardware, but in software, maintenance, and support. The costof software is not as much an issue in educational institutions in developed countries which are favoredwith reduced pricing from software developers and resellers. Even within this environment, softwarepiracy rates are alarming, and a cause of major concern (DeLoughry, 1987; Gilbert & Green, 1986b). Fordeveloping countries, however, software cost is a major factor considering their economic situation, par-ticularly because reduced pricing is generally not available to them.The second logical resources issue is the general lack of information about computing tech-nology in all areas. Alvarez et al. (1985) explain that this seems to be a normal trend considering that thisis a problem affecting developed countries as well. However, the means for distribution of informationare very scarce in Latin America. In fact, few systems exist for exchanging information on computing,particularly educational computing (Chadwick, 1983).Although new efforts with limited—but valuable—international access can be identified, andsome countries have well-established information networks, there continues to be a notable lack ofavailability of information for research or otherwise (Pimienta, 1991). The practical problems withestablishing these networks are enormous, including issues of data flow across borders, use of inter-national satellite communication, and organization and administration of the network (Oeffinger, 1987).56CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGYSince no similar project has been conducted in the Dominican Republic, this study was designedto gather the most basic data regarding educational computing in this country's higher education institu-tions. Therefore, the basic goals of the study make it descriptive in nature. Its purpose is to describeeducational computing from the point of view of professors, technical staff, and administration. Thisdescription includes all physical aspects of educational computing in the Dominican Republic, such ashardware, software, and physical resources available. It also includes the human factors involved ineducational computing, such as the disposition of university professors toward computers, experience,knowledge about computers, and human resources available. Certain informal comparisons among localuniversities will be necessary to describe key factors of the state of educational computing in theseuniversities.Population And Generalizabifity of the StudyThis sample can be said to be representative of the Dominican higher education communitysince the majority of Dominican students attend the higher education institutions selected for the sample.Because of the nature of this study, however, it is not the intent to generalize beyond the actual sampleselected. The main purpose of this study is not to make a universal claim about computers in education,but rather to describe some of the specific characteristics of Dominican higher education computing.These descriptions can be useful in identifying interesting patterns of computer usage in LatinAmerican countries, by describing physical and cultural problems that many other countries similar to theDominican Republic face. Thus, the real value of this study resides not on the population from which thesample was drawn, but on the selected sample itself.57SamplingThe people who participated in the study were professors and administrative personnel fromseven of the major universities in the Dominican Republic. The criteria used to determine which werethe major universities in the country were quantitative as well as qualitative. The selection was basedprimarily on student population, the target population of each university, and its location within thecountry. Factors such as popularity, reputation, and perceived status of each university were alsoconsidered when selecting the universities for the study.A paired selection was made, according to the universities' student enrollment, and theirlocation, so that some level of replication would exist, thereby allowing for a higher level of confidencein the findings. For this purpose, three different types of universities were identified: large universitieswith student populations of over 15,000 students; mid-size universities with enrollments of about 6,000 to10,000 students; and small universities with populations of less than 5,000 students.The universities were also divided into two main groups according to the region where theirmain campus is located. The first group consisted of universities located in the capital city, SantoDomingo, the largest city in the country, with a population of about 2.3 million. The second group wasmade up of universities with main campuses in the city of Santiago, the second largest city (Pop.700,000), and commercial center of the Cibao region.These two regions differ in many ways. The capital city is in the Distrito Nacional, a provincelocated on the southern-central coast of the country. Its population is mostly urban, although this regionis the most affected by the rural-urban migration problem, which poses many difficulties for education interms of economic stress and distribution of resources. On the other hand, it might be hypothezised thatbeing closer to the central government and having the greatest demand for education in the country,helps universities within this group.58Santiago is located in the Cibao region, located in the north-central part of the country, the mostproductive agricultural region. Although not as populated a city as Santo Domingo, the universities locat-ed in Santiago serve a large population concentrated in the Cibao region, the most densely populatedarea of the Dominican Republic.The selection of professors within each university was made in conjunction with eachuniversity's administration. Each administration was asked to select a total of fifty professors from all ofthe faculties, so that the number of professors selected from each faculty was representative of the actualsize of that faculty within the university. This ensures that the data gathered were appropriately weightedto reflect the actual uses of computers in the sampled universities. Within each faculty, administratorswere told to distribute the questionnaires among users, and non-users alike, but no specific selectioncriteria were defined otherwise.In addition to these professors, two representatives from each university's administration andtechnical departments were selected to be interviewed. The selection of the interviewees was strictlybased upon their knowledge about administrative policies and philosophies of the university, and aboutthe computing technology currently employed at each university.The UniversitiesThe universities chosen for the study were: the Pontificia Universidad Cataica Madre yMaestra/Pucmm, and Universidad TecnolOgica de Santiago/umsA, with their main campuses in the city ofSantiago; Universidad Nacional Pedro Henriquez Urefia/uNpriu, Institute TecnolOgico de Santo Domin-go/usrrpe, Universidad Dominicana OrganizaciOn y Mêtodo/o&m, Universidad Iberoamericana/uNisE, andUniversidad CatMica Santo Domingo/user), with their main campuses in the capital city.Another important university is the Universidad AutOnoma de Santo Domingo/uAsD, the onlypublic university in the country. This university currently serves a student population of about 24,000,59making it one of the largest universities as well. Although attempts were made to include the UASD in thisstudy, a three month long student strike made it impossible to achieve this goal in the limited timeavailable to collect the data for the study. Some brief comments about the selected universities areprovided below.Pontificia Universidad CatMica Madre y Maestra (PUCMM)Founded in September of 1962 by the Catholic community, it was the oldest private university inthe Dominican Republic. Unlike any other university, PUCMM operates not under governmental decree,but by a special concordat between the Vatican and the Dominican Republic. Its main campus is in thecity of Santiago, second largest city and economic center of the most densely populated area of thecountry. Its population of 8,000 students and approximately 500 professors make it a mid-sized universi-ty. PUCMM is widely regarded as one of the best universities in the country in terms of the quality ofeducation it provides, but also because of its age and because its Catholic heritage appeals to a mostlyCatholic community.Universidad TecnolOgica de Santiago (UTESA)Founded in 1970 in the city of Santiago, UTESA'S goal was to provide access to higher educationfor working-class adults from the Cibao region who had the least access to this kind of education, andcould only study at night. Its student population consists mainly of low-income young workers andadults, and currently the majority of students still attend night courses, although the university offersmorning, afternoon, night, and Saturday-only programs.Nowadays, urFsA offers greater choice in technical careers for low-income individuals. Technicalcourses provided are of relatively short duration and aimed at preparing students rapidly so that they canenter the workforce and possibly continue their studies later. Its population has been growing rapidly,60particularly because of the worsening economic situation which has forced students from other privateuniversities to look for less expensive alternatives. Mainly because of this, UTESA is currently one of thelargest universities in terms of student population, with an enrollment of about 30,000 students spreadacross their five campuses across the country. The total number of professors is about 700 to 800, ofwhich about 300 work at the Santiago campus.Universidad Nacional Pedro Henriquez Uretia (UNPHU)Founded by the FundezciOn Universitaria in April of 1966, UNPHU was the third privateuniversity in the Dominican Republic, after the PUCMM (1962), and ow (1966). It has two main campuseslocated in Santo Domingo. Other campuses are located in the cities of La Vega and San Juan de laMaguana. Its student enrollment is about 8,000 and the total number of professors is about 650, whichmakes it a mid-sized university. According to its Academic Vice-Rector, UNPHU'S main functions areeducation, research, and social or community work, and its primary objective is to achieve academic ex-cellence. This university is also very well regarded in the country.Instituto TecnolOgico de Santo Domingo (INTEC)The irrrEc was founded in June of 1972, and has its only campus in Santo Domingo. It is a smalluniversity with an enrollment of approximately 2,000 to 2,500 students, and approximately 250 profes-sors. Its main educational focus is engineering and social sciences, and this focus appropriately repre-sents the university's technical vision with emphasis on humanistic education of its students.According to its Administrative Vice-Rector, MEC was founded as an option for individuals whowanted to attend a higher education institution that was religiously and politically neutral. This universityis known for pioneering aggressive educational programs designed be completed in relatively smallamounts of time compared to other universities, because of their 12- or 13-trimester format without sum-61mer vacation breaks. This format appeals to individuals who want an undergraduate degree in a shortperiod of time, but do not want to settle for a technical degree.Universidad Dominicana OrganizaciOn y Metodo (O&M)This university was founded in 1966 to supply the rapidly increasing demand for highereducation in the mid-sixties. Its main purpose was to provide low-income individuals with careertraining so that they could, in a short time, join the workforce and develop themselves as professionals inthe areas of accounting, administration, and other areas in which Dominican Republic was rapidlydeveloping following an era of dictatorship.Currently, own is one of the largest private universities in the country with a student enrollmentof about 18,000 students and approximately 600 professors. Its main campus is located in Santo Domin-go, and other campuses are located in Santiago, Puerto Plata, San Jose de Ocoa, and La Romana.Universidad Iberoamericana (UNIBE)One of the newest universities in this study, UNIBE was founded in January of 1982. It is thesmallest university in the study, and its only campus is located in Santo Domingo. It has a studentenrollment of approximately 2,000, with about 240 professors in 14 different programs. The main focusof UNIBE has been in careers such as law, business administration, odontology, and marketing, but it isexpanding rapidly to other areas of great demand, such as computer science. This university is knownmainly as an elite university, very expensive compared to others in this study, but very well-equipped. Itis affiliated with a teaching hospital for its medical school.62Universidad CatOlica Santo Domingo (USCD)This is the newest university of those included in this study, founded in December of 1982 by theCatholic community in Santo Domingo. It has a student population of approximately 2,600, served byabout 200 professors. This university is still developing several of its programs, and concentrates inprograms such as administration, advertising, tourism, and the arts. Along with UNIBE, this universityseems to be gaining rapid popularity in Santo Domingo, maybe because it is one of the few universitiesoffering programs in areas such as diplomacy, for which it is well-known.Figure 2. Location and other basic information about the selected universities63Data CollectionA sample of professors was selected by each university's administration, according to specificinstructions from the researcher. From each faculty a number of subjects was selected proportional to thesize of that faculty within the university. The total number of professors in each university's sample variessomewhat according to total response rate and size of the university; but the sample size was an averageof 28 professors per university, for a total of 194 professors.Participating professors completed a questionnaire, and administrative and technical personnelfrom each university were interviewed. Fifty questionnaires were given to each university's administra-tion, to be distributed to professors from each faculty through their own internal mailing system. Theycompleted these questionnaires regarding usage or non-usage of computers, problems with the use ofcomputers (users), reasons for not using computers (non-users), knowledge about computers and theirapplications in higher education, and opinions and attitudes toward computers. After the questionnaireswere completed, these were returned to the administration, and then to the researcher.The data for the technical and administrative parts of the study were gathered through personalinterviews, rather than through written questionnaires. The reason for this approach is that the kind ofinformation needed about administrative policies and technical resources of the university was usuallyavailable through only one or two key individuals representing their university in those areas of interest.For example, an Administrative Vice-Rector of a university was most likely to have all the informationneeded for this study about the history and evolution of the university and its general policies regardingeducational computing. In the same manner, the individual in charge of computing, or the computingcentre, was able to answer most questions regarding the number of computers, type of computers, theirlocation, and their general form of use.64Questionnaire developmentThe professors' questionnaire used in this study is based on questionnaires used in the "Comput-ers in Education" study conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement/LEA in 1988 (Pelgrum & Plomp, 1991).The questions drawn from these questionnaires were modified to create two new questionnairesto be piloted in a Dominican university, with the goal of developing an appropriate tool for gathering thedata. Two pilot questionnaires were developed, one for administrative personnel, and one for profes-sors. Changes were made to the new questionnaires after piloting, so that the questions would be tail-ored to the researcher's need to collect data about availability of computing technology, physical andhuman support, and professors' disposition toward educational computing. Some of the informationgathered during the pilot study was of critical value in controlling factors such as the length of thequestionnaire and type of questions. The pilot study also provided information on the overall level ofknowledge about educational computing among respondents, which permitted the development ofquestions within that perceived range of knowledge, making them simpler and shorter, in many cases.The questionnaire included items dealing with the attitudes of professors toward computers,and these were a subset of the computer attitude scale developed by Brenda Loyd, University of Virginia(Loyd, personal communication, December 18, 1990). The original scale consisted of forty items dividedinto four sub-scales: anxiety, confidence, liking, and usefulness. Measuring the attitude of professorstoward computers was only a part of the overall study, so it was decided to use a subset of this scale, inorder to keep the questionnaire as brief as possible. Three questions from each sub-scale were selected,taking into consideration the validity of their content for this population, the psychometric properties ofthe questions (Loyd & Gressard, 1984b), and how appropriate a translation could be made. A total of 12attitude questions were incorporated into the questionnaire, three for each of the sub-scales mentionedabove.65Finally, the format of the questionnaire itself was developed over a two-month period, withactive participation from David Robitaille, David Bateson, and Marcia Johnson at the University of BritishColumbia. Those questions which appeared to be biased, unclear, or which might have drawn confusingor inaccurate information were revised, and changed accordingly before establishing the final question-naire format. Both the original questionnaire, and a translated version can be found in Appendices A andB, respectively.InterviewsTwo interview schedules were developed. It was decided that key informant interviews and notquestionnaires would be used in this part of the study for several reasons. First, as previously explained,the kind of questions to be asked could be answered by only a few people at each university—those incharge of the technical and computing staff and equipment (for the technical questions), and some topadministrative personnel (for the administrative questions). Second, because of the first reason, a ques-tionnaire would not be sufficient nor accurate enough to gather the needed information. Thus, consider-ing the small number of people involved, interviews presented a much more practical and efficientapproach to gathering information on technical and administrative issues. As for the development of thequestions themselves, input from the pilot study was invaluable in designing the interview schedules.The interviews themselves were of approximately 30 minutes in length, and mostly informal.The schedules presented a guide of the major topics to cover during the interviews, but intervieweeswere encouraged to discuss any particular aspects of computing that they felt were important in theircase. This approach was very positive in that interesting discussions of topics not included in theschedule were held, but it had the effect of making the outcomes of the interviews somewhat dissimilaramong universities, making them more difficult to analyze and compare. Most of the interviews wereaudiotaped, although two of them were recorded with notes, according to the interviewees' preference.66It was decided that the information gathered through these interviews would be used as themain source of information for the administrative point of view about computing, and only as a secon-dary source of information about actual uses of computers in these universities. Also, due to the rapidlychanging nature of technology, information about technical issues such as the number and type of com-puters used, for example, is important only as a "snapshot" of the status of these technologies in Domini-can universities in the early 1990s. More emphasis, however, has been given to deciding what the univer-sities are seeking during the next few years in terms of computing in education, rather than on analyzingthe number or type of equipment being used now.The interview schedules for both the administrative and technical interviews can be found inAppendices C and D, respectively.Pilot StudyThe pilot study was conducted during the three-month period from April to June, 1990. Themain goal of the pilot study was to test the basic methodology and tools to be used and, at the same time,collect basic information to help refine the final questionnaires for the present study. It was done at oneof the major universities in the Dominican Republic, the Pontificia Universidad Cataica Madre yMaestra (Pucmm), located in the city of Santiago.There were several decisions to be made in the selection of the sample. First, the university inwhich the pilot study was conducted, the PUCMM, was arbitrarily selected because it provided severaladvantages, namely its location and the fact that it was a familiar university environment for the research-er—a key advantage considering the relatively short period of time available to complete the pilot study.The second step was to choose the actual subjects for the study, which called for a sample ofprofessors, as well as a sample of administrative personnel. After consulting some professors at the uni-versity, it was decided that the subjects would be selected arbitrarily, at the discretion of the faculty67deans. The faculty deans were asked to select a number of users and non-users of computing technologywithin their faculty. They were also asked to select some professors that they knew as being promotersof the use of computer technology and some professors they knew as being against the use of computers.This method was ideal since it provided the researcher with extreme cases to test the reaction ofprofessors to the questions posed, and the range and limits of awareness of computer technology amongprofessors.After being granted permission from the administration of the PUCMM to conduct the pilot study,questionnaires were distributed to 49 professors in four faculties (Engineering; Sciences and Humanities;Health Sciences; Social Sciences and Administration), and an additional nine given to individuals inadministrative departments. The return rate was very high. Thirty completed questionnaires from profes-sors (80% response rate) and six from the administrative employees (67% response rate) were returned.This was probably due to the researchers' proximity to the university which allowed constant follow-upduring several visits to the campus.To gather additional information about the institutional approach to computer technology, keyadministrative, academic, technical, and research personnel were interviewed. These interviews wereshort (about 30-45 minutes) and their purpose was to test the appropriateness of the interviews for gath-ering the desired information from the administration (the length of the interview in particular) and to testsome of the actual questions to be asked during the interviews in the present study.In general, the methodology followed in the main study was similar to the one used in the pilotstudy, with one major difference: in the pilot study, questionnaires were distributed personally to everyprofessor selected. This was possible only during the pilot study and it was an effective way to ensure agood response rate. During the main study this was not possible, however, so the distribution methodpreviously described was used.68Analysis And ReportingThe characteristics of this study are consistent with those of a case study, in which multiple caseswere used and the method of data collection was a survey using interviews and questionnaires as instru-ments. The study is mainly descriptive, since its main concern is to describe certain variables that areconsidered to have important influence on the status of educational computing—such as the availabilityand quality of the physical, human, and logical resources—as well as the uses of computers by professorsin the surveyed universities.For the analysis and interpretation of the data, a combination of approaches was used. The maintechnique used is described as a type of "Pattern-Matching" technique, referred to by Yin (1988) as"Explanation Building". In this technique, a cross-case analysis of a set of variables—those defined bythe literature as being important in educational computing—is conducted with the data gathered fromeach university. In other words, those variables which are thought to determine or affect educationalcomputing in higher education are examined in each university, and common patterns are identified, andexplained, whenever possible. Every university represents a case in the study, and the goal is to drawbasic conclusions about the status of educational computing, based on common patterns found acrossuniversities.The first step after data collection was to organize the data in a way that facilitated analysis. Inter-views were transcribed and appropriately indexed, so that specific parts of it could be retrieved effortless-ly. The questionnaires were coded, and the data entered in a custom-designed HypercardTM stack thatallowed semi-automated data entry, and some re-coding done after the data had been entered. Thesedata were then exported to the SYSTAT statistical program (Apple Macintosh version 5.1), with which mostrelevant analyses were performed.The second step in the analysis of the data was to develop a descriptive framework in which theresponses to the questions in the interviews and the questionnaires were grouped into meaningful sets69which would help to answer each focus question. This framework corresponds to the actual structure ofChapter 4, where the results are reported. Each set consisted of data from questions from both theinterviews and the questionnaires that are relevant to one aspect of the study.For each data set, questionnaire data were analyzed mainly through the tabulation of frequenciesacross universities, as well as other straightforward forms of analysis. In this manner, the differences andcommonalities among universities were exposed, and patterns identified. In each case, the availableinformation was cross-checked and interpreted using information gathered through the interviews, sothat specific situations could be explained.The analysis of the attitudes of professors toward learning and working with computers requiredseveral additional tasks. The reduced scale was tested for reliability, so an analysis of reliability using theLERTAP program (Nelson, 1974). In addition to that, the dimensionality of the reduced scale—which wassupposed to contain four different sub-scales—was threatened by the small number of items chosen foreach sub-scale (3 items per sub-scale), so a factor analysis was performed using SYSTAT.Most of the results are reported in graphical form, which are particularly helpful for identifyingcommonalities and differences between universities at a glance. Also, extensive use of three-dimensionalgraphs is made, mainly because of their ability to represent several variables across universities in a singlegraph. The analysis of these variables would otherwise require multiple two-dimensional graphs, andthis would make it more difficult to understand the overall view being presented.Since this study focuses on general patterns of interest across the universities studied, rather thanon specific details, exact values are usually not reported on the graphs and only rounded values are usedin the tables. However, complete tables for each of the graphs are included in Appendix E.70CHAPTER 4: RESULTSThis chapter is concerned with answering the two research questions that give shape to thisstudy. It is divided into three main sections. The first section presents a profile of the professors who re-turned their questionnaires, and each of the other two sections addresses one of the research questions.In each of these last two sections, the major components of the answer to that particular question areidentified, and the relevant data available to explain each component are reported. Data from both theprofessors' questionnaires and the administrative and technical interviews are presented and examined.In most cases interview data and observations are used to support, further explain, or clarify someconclusions drawn from the questionnaires.Profile of the RespondentsThe data reported in this chapter come from the technical and administrative interviews, and theprofessors' questionnaires. This section provides some insight about the professors who responded tothe questionnaires, both users and non-users of computers. This information provides background forthe reader to better understand and interpret the data presented in the reminder of this chapter.A total of 194 out of 350 questionnaires (55%) were returned by professors from all academicfaculties or departments; the response rate ranges from a low of 36% (n=18) at UNPHU to a high of 76%(n=38) at INTEL. Table 1 shows the frequency and response rate for each university.Table 1Questionnaire response rates by universityUniversities INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESA TOTALNo. of Eligible Professors 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 350No. of Returns 38 35 25 28 26 18 24 194Return Rate (%) 76 70 50 56 52 36 48 5571*UTESAUNPHUUNIBEUCSDPUCMMO&MINTECH [ -^I 4---1 I ^I^*—I I ^*20^30^40^50^60^70^80AGE (Years)Figure 3. Distribution of the age of professors across universities.The average age of respondents was 38 years, with 50% of all respondents falling between 32and 43 years old. As shown in Figure 3, the distribution of ages was fairly similar across universities.About 69% of the respondents were male, and 28% female, while the remaining 3% declined to answerthis question.The average number of years of experience in the field of education was 11 years (see Figure 4).However, it is a common practice in Dominican universities to have professors that are not necessarilyeducators, but professionals in other areas who teach as a second job.UTESAUNPHUUNIBEUCSDPUCMMO&MINTEC10^20^30^40^50^60EXPERIENCE (Years)Figure 4. Distribution of the experience of professors in the field of education across universities.72O Did not answerOther0 DoctoralMaster's■ UnderGrad (Complete)▪ UnderGrad (Partial)100% —20% —0% 1^1AUK O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU MESAUNIVERSITYMost professors surveyed (60%) had an undergraduate degree, but not necessarily in education.About half as many professors (28%) had a master's-level degree, and about 9% of all professors had adoctoral degree. A few professors (3%) did not have a complete undergraduate degree. Figure 5 showsthat this pattern applied to most universities. The majority of professors from PUCMM had master's degrees.Figure 5. Distribution of the highest degrees held by surveyed professors across universities.Computer usage varied significantly among universities, with an average of 43% of all respon-dents being computer users. At uvrEc, for example, 74% of respondents used computers, while in otheruniversities such as UCSD or UTESA the percentage of computer users was as low as 21% and 25%, respec-tively. Table 3, and Figure 6 show the distribution of users and non-users across universities.Table 2Distribution of users and non-users of computers by universityINTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESA TOTAL NNon-users (%) 26 63 48 79 65 50 75 57 110Users (%) 74 37 52 21 35 50 25 43 84N 38 35 25 28 26 18 24 19473►—I^I^I-1I^I— ,—I I^I-II- 1-.1^I^I---, -- -I I I--- -Figure 7. Computing experience of computer users across universities.Professors were also asked in what year they had used computers for the first time, and if theyhad used a computer for the first time at the university as a student, at the university as a professor, athome, or somewhere else. As depicted in Figure 8, most professors used a computer for the first timeduring the 1980s, which is not surprising. Possible exceptions are PUCMM and UNPHU which showed themost number of experienced users. As to where they had used computers for the first time, about 10%UTFSAUNPHU--.F-^UNIBErC2'UCSDn PUCMMO&MINTEC65^75^85^95YEARFigure 8. Year in which computer-using professors started using computers, by university.7510 OAKph0 Did not answerOA IN Somewhere elseICI At Home49)/6 • Univ/Pulessor• Univ/Student234036^1 I^I^I I I 1I NIEC^O&M PUCNIM^LCSD^WIRE thIFFIU Ur ISAUNIVERSDYsaid they had used them for the first time at home. Only 2% of the computer users said they usedcomputers for the first time at the university as professors. All those who had used computers for the firsttime as professors at their university were from PUCM.About 43% of the computer-using professors indicated they had first used a computer "some-where else", and 42% said that they had used a computer for the first time as university students. Furtheranalysis revealed that "somewhere else" in most cases meant at work (44%) or at a technical traininginstitution (28%), while some said it was at a friend's house (11%) or while studying at a foreign university(11%). These results are summarized in Figure 9.Figure 9. Places in which professors learned about computers.A second area of interest was the knowledge that professors had about everyday computingissues and tasks. Item 9 on the professors' questionnaire was a list of ten statements concerning basictasks and concepts in educational computing (For presentation purposes, these statements are labeledhere as K1 through K10.) The first two statements were of a conceptual nature: "I know several uses ofcomputers" and "I know some advantages of using computers in education". The next five statements76100%409620%K1^K2Conceptual1 1 1 1  1 1 1K3^K4 ^K5^K6^K7K8^K9^K10I 1TechnicaleeeeBasicCI Did not answerE NoIN YesCOMPUTER-RELATED TOPICSdealt with more technical topics, such as: "I know several criteria to judge printers", "I know what amodem is", and "I know different kinds of computers: MS-DOS, Apple II, Macintosh, UNIX'. The last threeitems referred to basic tasks that even a novice user would likely be familiar with: "I know how to copy afile from one disk to another disk", "I know how to edit a document with a word processor", and "I knowhow to create a data file on a computer".An unexpectedly large number of professors indicated that they were actually familiar with mostof the concepts, technical issues, and tasks presented. Figure 10 shows the percentage of yEs and NOresponses. Two things are interesting from this chart. First, while the percentage of yEs responses on thetechnical issues (K3 to K7) was, as expected, lower than on the other statements, all percentages werehigher than expected (for a more detailed table, see Appendix E). It seems obvious that the computerexperience of these professors had a lot to do with these results. The second interesting point relates tostatement Kl: "I know some advantages of using computers in education". Professors appeared quiteconfident about knowing some benefits of using computers in education, even though the literature in ed-ucational computing shows great controversy about several aspects of the use of computers in education.Figure 10. Percentage of YES and NO responses to knowledge questions about computers.77The Status of Educational Computing in Dominican UniversitiesTo assess the current status of educational computing it is important to identify those characteris-tics that give shape to, or condition educational computing. This section has been divided into severalsub-sections, each of which concerns an important aspect of educational computing. The first sub-section contains a description of the organization of the computing environment in which professors andstudents use computers. The other three sub-sections contain descriptions the availability, and adequacyof the physical, human, and logical resources in the surveyed universities. Each section concentrates onthe areas of most interest, such as hardware and software available in each university, computing poli-cies, training, and motivational programs in place.The Computing EnvironmentThe environment in which university professors and students make use of computing technolo-gy is determined by many different factors, often related to a university's policies, and approach tocomputing. In order to examine some of these factors from each universtity's particular perspective, anumber of questions were included in the technical and administrative interviews that were conductedwith officials from each university. The answers to these questions and observations made during theinterviews and visits to the universities are reported and examined in this section.Organization of Computing ServicesThe first factor of interest is related to the general organization of computing within the partici-pating universities. A technical and an administrative representative from each university was asked toexplain the role of the computing centre(s) in relation to the administrative and academic functions of theuniversity.78ComputerScienceAcademicFunctionAcademicFunctionAdministrativeFunctionAdministrativeComputingAdministrativeFunctionOtherFaculties/Depts.AcademicComputingAdminisrativeand AcademicComputingApproach A: Separate academic and administrative computing.^ .^.Approach B: Merged academic and administrative computingOtherFaculties/Depts.ComputerScienceTwo distinct approaches to computing were evident from the interviews. In the first approach,there was one department in charge of administrative computing, which reported to the administration,while academic computing was controlled by the department of computer science or informatics (seeApproach A, Figure 11). In the second approach, one computing department was in charge of all aca-demic and administrative computing, which depends upon the administration, and whose academic op-erations were controlled by the computer science or informatics department (see Approach B, Figure 11).Figure 11. Organizational approaches to computing used by the surveyed universities.Only om4 reported having a distributed administrative computing environment based on micro-computers, while the rest of the universities relied upon centralized computing systems, and the use ofterminals across administrative departments. Some use of microcomputers in administrative departmentswas reported, but there was no extensive use of them for administrative purposes, except at O&M whereonly microcomputers were used. In the academic area, the use of microcomputers was more extensive,however, and all universities had academic laboratories set up with microcomputers. In addition to that,all universities except ov had a centralized computing system based on a minicomputer for academicuses.79Importance of ComputingInterviewees were asked how long their universities had been using computers for administra-tive and academic tasks, and what they thought the advantages and disadvantages of computing were.Also, both technical and administrative personnel were asked what had been the trend of investment incomputing over the last few years at their universities.Three universities, PUCMM, UNPHU, and o&M, reported having used computers since before 1975,while the other universities started using computers during the 1980s, first as administration tools, andeventually spreading to academic uses. Most universities reported making greater investments in com-puting and, although no specific numbers were available, interviewees said that their universities weredefinitely committed to computing, and that investment in computing matters has been increasing signifi-cantly over the last few years. Testifying to the validity of these comments are a number of computing-related projects in progress at many of the universities. For example, INTEL was redesigning most adminis-trative systems, ucsn and IBM had a joint multimedia project related to the celebration of the 500th anniver-sary of the voyage of Columbus, and UNPHU was expanding its computing environment, with the help oflocal and international agencies.The advantages of computing cited by the interviewees related for the most part to benefits ofcomputing in administration. Comments such as, "Our services have become much more efficient, faster,and much more reliable" (Vice-rector, o&M), and "To obtain the data on time, so that there is no delay inadministrative processes" (Vice-rector, UNPHU) were common among administrative personnel. Whenasked about the educational benefits of computing, however, the responses were not as clear. Two ofthe responses are characteristic:1. In this country, and in this university, we use the computer for instructionspecifically in the area of informatics. I am personally trying to motivate a project to usecomputers in other areas, not only in heath sciences or informatics. (Vice-rector, MESA)802. I think that academic personnel should use computers to develop students'capabilities, and involve them in the teaching-learning process. That is, to enhancestudents' learning conditions with the computer. (Vice-rector, DrrEc)These two interviewees emphasized the need for a change to use computers in other academicareas, but the majority of respondents did not mention any educational advantages of computing otherthan their use in informatics or computer science.The disadvantages of computing mentioned during the interviews were mostly related to a lackof resources to support computing, particularly economic and human resources. The following are repre-sentative of that view:1. I think that the greatest problem of computing is human resources, because it is aresource that since it is in great demand, and the university pays so little, it does nothave permanency or stability in the university. The other thing is that the systemsanalyst (or computer scientist) does not know the academic processes, and that makesthe situation that much more difficult. (Vice-rector, INTEC)2. [The main problem with computing is] resources. You know that to implement anambitious program costs a lot of money ... and usually these institutions have economiclimitations ... (Vice-rector, UTESA)The main concern among interviewees was over the lack of economic resources to set up,support, and maintain computing facilities in the universities. In general, it appeared much easier forrespondents to come up with advantages than with disadvantages of computing. One respondent evenplayed down the disadvantages of computing, indicating that the advantages heavily outweighed thepossible disadvantages of computing, which were limited to technical problems.Physical ResourcesThe most visible aspect of educational computing in higher education institutions are the physi-cal resources needed to support it, and as such, those resources are an important focus of this study.81Data about physical resources were gathered through both the technical interviews, and the question-naire. The technical interviews provided detailed information about current hardware and software tech-nology being used, as well as information regarding laboratories, the universities' energy infrastructure,and other physical facilities in place at each university. Questionnaire responses provided data aboutprofessors' perceptions of the availability and quality of these and other physical resources.Hardware TechnologyThe types of computers available in Dominican universities fall mainly into two categories:minicomputers and microcomputers. Minicomputing technology is used for both administrative and aca-demic computing, while microcomputing laboratories are used mainly for academic purposes. Thetypical trend for all universities has been to move away from old minicomputing systems, such as the IBMS/34 or IBM S/36, to newer minicomputing technology capable of running UNIX systems and applications.However, three universities (UTESA, PUCMM, and ucsD) still use older minicomputing technology, either byitself, as in the case of UTESA, or alongside newer technology, as in the case of PUCMM and UCSD.Microcomputing is used primarily for academic computing. All universities have microcomput-ing laboratories dedicated to students, and most universities have some microcomputers in several ad-ministrative and academic departments. The predominant microcomputing technology in use is PC/MS-DOS,although other technologies, such as Apple II, and Apple Macintosh computers are present in smallernumbers. A peculiar case is that of O&M, which concentrates specifically on microcomputing for bothacademic and administrative purposes. The rationale for this was explained by the Vice-rector of Scienceand Tropical Technology of O&M:We think that, in the Dominican Republic, for each mainframe or minicomputer, thereare hundreds or thousands of microcomputers. If we think about the work force, foreach person needed to work on mainframes or minicomputers, there will be a need for20 or 30 people that know how to work with microcomputers. (Vice-Rector, o&M)82Software TechnologyThe software-related questions included in the technical interview examined two differentsoftware categories: operating systems, and application software. The system software used for minicom-puting is tightly related to the kind of computer in use, and again the trend here is to switch to a standardoperating system such as UNIX. Universities that had older minicomputing systems were using these sys-tems' native operating systems. In microcomputing, the de-facto standard is MS-DOS, which is in use acrossadministrative and academic departments.Administrative application software is developed in-house at all universities, using programminglanguages such as RPG and COBOL. There is a trend toward newer technology in this area, and four out ofthe seven universities either already have re-developed, or are re-developing, their administrative systemsto run on database systems such as Informix's 4GL, and Oracle. Microcomputer application software foradministration is also developed in-house using similar tools, such as the popular dbase database forMS-DOS computers, and programming languages such as Pascal or Basic. However, most microcomputerapplications used in administrative departments are off-the-shelf multipurpose applications, such as wordprocessors, and spreadsheets.Educational application software was generally limited to the tools used in computer sciencecourses or continuing education courses. Computer science tools, such as languages, databases, and tu-torials, were available for both minicomputer and microcomputer systems. Microcomputer applications,such as spreadsheets, word processors, and databases were used for continuing education courses andfor microcomputer courses for non-computer science students. There were no instructional applications,or computer-aided instruction (cm) tools found in this study. Only two interviewees indicated that someinstructional uses of computers were being carried out regularly by some professors. Table 3 summarizesthe data presented in the last two sections regarding availability of hardware and software technology.83Table 3Summary of the ,_pe of hardware and software available in the universities surveyedUniversity^ Type of Hardware AvailableType of Software AvailableINTECO&MPUCMMUCSDUNIBEUNPHUUTESAAdministrative Use Academic UseMini Micro Mini^Micro0/S Apps^0/S Apps 0/S Apps^0/S AppsUNIXS3x,UNIXS3xUNIXUNIXS3xIHIHIHIHIHIHMSMSMS,MFMSMSWP,SSDB,IH,SS,P2DB,SS,WPIHDB,SS,WSUNIXS3x,UNIXS3x,UNIXUNIXUNIXS3xP 1,STDB,P1IH,P1D B, P1DB,P 1, STP1MSMS,A2MSMSMS,MFMSMSDB,P2,SS,WPP2,SS,WPDB,P2,SS,WPDB,SS,WPDB,SS,WPAC,DB,SS,WPP2,SS,WPHardware codes:A2 = Apple II-compatible computer.^ S3 = IBM System 34, or 36 minicomputer.Mac = Apple Macintosh computer. UX = Minicomputer that runs the UNIX operating system.PC = IBM or IBM-compatible personal computer.Operating System codes:A2 = Apple II-compatible operating system.^S3x = IBM System 34 or 36 operating system.MF = Macintosh FinderTM operating system. UNIX = AT&T UNIV.' operating system.MS = Microsoft Disk Operating System (MS-DOS).Application codes:AC = Accounting packages.^ P2 = Microcomputer programming languages: PASCAL, C.DB = Database programs, such as dbase III, Oracle, 4GL.^SS = Spreadsheets: Lotus 123, Borland Quattro.IH = Custom applications developed in-house.^ST = Statistical packages.P1 = Minicomputer programming languages: RPG, COBOL, C. WP = Word processors: WordStar, WordPerfectAdministrative Use^Academic UseMini^Micro Mini^MicroINTEC^UX PC UX PCO&M PC PC,A2PUCMM^S3,UX PC,Mac S3,UX PCUCSD S3,UX PC S3,UX PCUNIBE^UX PC UX PC,MacUNPHU UX UX PCUTESA^S3 PC S3 PC84Adequacy of Hardware and SoftwareComputer-using professors (about 43% of the total) in each university were asked several ques-tions (questions 6, 8-1, and 10-1 through 10-10 on the questionnaire) about the adequacy and availabilityof the hardware and software to them. Non-users of computers (57% overall) were only asked two ques-tions (questions 12-7, 12-10), on the assumption that they would not be as well informed about thesetopics as computers users.Hardware availability. About 36% of the computer-using professors said they had computersavailable to them only at the university, 19% had computers available only at home, and 33% said theyhad computers available to them both at home and at the university. Additionally, about 12% said theyhad computers available to them somewhere else other than at home or at the university, most probablyat work. As is shown in Figure 12, however, there were notable differences among universities. While100% of computer users at puce reported having computers available to them at the university, less thanFigure 12. Percentage of computer users who said they had computers available at their universities.8556% said so at UCSD, UNIBE, UNPHU, and U1ESA. This indicates that many computer users actually do not havecomputers available to them at the university, but only at work or at home.Professors were asked how adequate the number of computers was at their universities, and alsoif the number of computers presented a problem to them when they used computers at the university.When asked how adequate the number of computers available to them was (question 8-1), 51% rated thisresource "inadequate" or "very inadequate", while 38% rated it "adequate" or "very adequate". Figure 13shows professors' responses to question 8-1.Figure 13. Percentage of users who said the number of computers was adequate.Some differences among universities are evident. Computer-using professors at om seemed tobe the most satisfied with the number of computers in their university (about 85% said the number ofcomputers was adequate), but less than 40% of computer-using professors at INTEC, PUCMM, UCSD, and UNIBE,and less than 10% in UNPHU and urEsA expressed satisfaction with this resource.A number of professors (11% overall) did not answer these questions, particularly those from86UCSD, UNIBE, UNPHU, and urEsA. This was true for a number of questions. One can only speculate about thereason for this, but some professors indicated not having computers available for their use at theiruniversity, but possibly somewhere else (see Figure 12), thus are not able to assess some of the comput-ing-related resources available at their university. For the purposes of reporting it is of interest not toomit these cases, however questionable they are, because of the number of non-respondents variesacross universities, and omitting them will significantly vary the proportions depicted in some of thefigures.Computer-using professors were presented with a number of possible problems which theymight encounter while using computers at the university. When asked if one of these problems was, thatthe number of computers was insufficient (question 10-1), approximately the same response as in ques-tion 8-1 was obtained: 57% said it was a problem, 35% said it was not a problem. The other hardware-related problems listed were: "The number of peripherals is insufficient", "Maintenance of availableequipment is deficient", "Limitations of current equipment (obsolete, slow, low quality, insufficientmemory)", and "The supply of energy (electricity) is inadequate". The problem "The supply of energy(electricity) is inadequate" was left out of this discussion because, although is a problem that affectshardware directly, it is not inherent in the hardware. Other physical resources, such as energy supply,will be discussed later on in this chapter.Figure 14 shows a graph of the percentage of computer-using professors who selected these asproblems they experienced while using computers at their university. The problem that was mostfrequently selected overall was "The number of peripherals is insufficient" (38% overall), followed by"Maintenance of available equipment is deficient" (33%), and "Limitations of current equipment" (26%).Since Figure 14 also shows the percentage of responses by university, it is relatively simple to analyze thedata at the university level. Computer users at UTESA, for example, were the ones who most frequentlyselected these as being problems they experience at the university.8710090aoE^70R^60C^50E^40N^30T^20100INTECO&M^ Insufficient number of peripherals^PUCMM Maintenance is deficientUCSDUNIBE^Limitations of current equipmentUNIVERSITY^UNPHUUTESAFigure 14. Percentage of computer users who experienced hardware-related problems.Non-users were given a number of possible reasons for not using computers, among which "Thenumber of computers is insufficient", and "Computers are not accessible enough to professors" (ques-tions 12-7, and 12-10) were the only two directly related to hardware. Professors who did not use com-puters were asked to mark those options which they considered to be reasons not to use computers.While only about 15% of non-users said that an insufficient number of computers was a reasonfor not using computers, the majority (52%) indicated that the inaccessibility of the available computerswas indeed a reason for them not to use computers. Non-users from all universities showed a similarpattern of response to this question. Figure 15 shows the percentage of non-users that chose thoseoptions in each university.Software Availability. Computer-using professors were asked if any of the following wereproblems they experienced while using computers at the university: "There are not enough applications(programs) available for public use", "The available applications are very difficult to use", "The manuals8810090P 80E^70R^60C^50E^40N^30T^201001NTECO&MPUCMMucsDUNIBEUNIVERSITY^UNPHUUTESATOTALComputers not AccessibleInsufficient ComputersFigure 15. Percentage of non-users who did not use computers because of hardware-related reasons.and support materials are incomplete or inexistent", "There is no information about the different applica-tions or their quality", "The applications are in English, and there are no Spanish versions available"(questions 10-6 through 10-10).Figure 16 shows the percentage of computer users who selected these as problems they experi-enced when using computers at their university. The problem that was selected by the largest number ofusers in all universities (45% overall) was that no manuals or support materials were available for theapplications they used. A possible explanation for this is the widespread use of unauthorized copies ofapplication software in the country which leads to a lack of manuals and support materials.Professors from PUCMM and UNIBE selected the "no information on applications" problem, andprofessors from trrrEc and own selected the "not enough applications" problem more frequently thanprofessors from other universities. In relation to the other problems, responses appeared to follow simi-lar patterns. A unique response came from UNIBE, were 44% of computer-using professors expressed con-cern about the limited number of applications in Spanish available.89706050403020100INTECO&MPUCMMUCSDUNIBEUNIVERSITY UNPHUUTESANonexistent Manuals & SupportNot enough AppsNo info on AppsApps in English, no SpanishApps are difficult to use1009080PERCENTFigure 16 Percentage of computer users who experienced software-related problems.Other Physical ResourcesAlthough computing hardware and software are the two major physical components of educa-tional computing, the availability and quality of other physical resources may be equally important. Boththe interviews and the questionnaires included specific questions regarding the computing laboratories'setup, availability, and services provided. They also included questions about the universities' electricalinfrastructure (currently a major issue in the Dominican Republic), and other facilities they provided forprofessors and students.Computer laboratories. The computing services provided by universities can heavily influencethose who actually use the computers and how they use them. This section explores the services offeredby the universities through their computing laboratories. According to the technical interviews, all of the90universities had a multi-purpose computing facility for students, and professors. Also, most universitieshad an administrative computing centre, usually separate from the academic facility, that provided com-puting services to administrative departments through terminals.Although some universities had more than one location for academic computing, only oe,thi had athree-laboratory setup, each for a specific purpose. All other universities either had all computers (mini-computers and microcomputers) in a single location, or had one or two locations which provided mixedservices. The usual operating hours for these laboratories were from 7-9 Am to 8-10 PM. In all cases therewas a person in charge of the facility, usually an advanced student, computer technologist, or a systemsoperator, in the case of minicomputing facilities. This person's job was usually nothing more than tosupervise the use of the equipment, and control printing and other shared resources; although, in a fewinstances, they also provided some technical assistance to users.Services provided by these computing laboratories differed across universities. These serviceswere usually provided either on a first-come, first-served basis, or on demand, requiring booking prior tocoming to the laboratory. There was no remote access to computers available in any university, althoughUNIBE was planning to make administrative functions available to certain officials through modems.Laboratories in most universities provided three basic services. First, the computer laboratoriesserved as the place where hands-on computer courses could be held. Second, the computer laboratoriesprovided the students with the software they needed to carry out course-related activities. Third, thelaboratories were open to all students who wanted to use computers for university-related work.While laboratories in all universities provided these three basic services, two universities provid-ed two other additional services. In the computer laboratories at trrrEc, om, and UNPHU, for example, therewere personnel specifically assigned to help users (students or professors) with technical problems orwith questions regarding the hardware or software they were using. These monitores (monitors), as theywere called, were usually experienced or advanced students who earned credit or money for their work91at the laboratories. Furthermore, unlike any other university, laboratories in llsTIEC were also responsiblefor preparing workshops on the use of computers for both professors and students.Table 4Setup, and services offered in computer laboratories in the universities surveyedUniversity Labs Hours Access Supervision Services offeredP S TO C P T SWXINTEC Educ 9-21 First-come, first served • • • • • • •Admin 9-21 • • • •UTESA Educ 8-22 Booking • • • • •Admin 8-20 • • •O&M Educ I 7-22 First-come, first served • • • • •Educ II 7-22 First-come, first served • • • • •Educ III Booking • • •UNIBE Educ 8-22 First-come, first served • • • • •Admin 8-18 • •UCSD Educ/Admin 8-20 • • • • •UNPHU Educ 9-22 Booking • • • • • • •Admin 8-22 • • •PUCMM Educ I 8-22 Booking • • • • •Educ II 8-22 Booking • • • • •Admin 8-18 • •Supervision codes:P = Professors supervise their students in the lab.S = A student "monitor" that helps users.Services Offered codes:C = Classes.P = Practice or Homework.T = Technical Support for specific software, etc.T = A computer science technician that helps users.0 = A systems' operator (usually for mini systems).S = Software available, and software development.W = Workshops.X = Special Uses, such as project development, research, etc.92In all cases, the academic laboratories were originally set up for computer science students tocarry out their coursework-related exercises. Nowadays, computing services are offered to all studentsand professors, although in practice the use of computers is limited mostly to students, and then almostuniquely to those in areas of computer science and engineering. The interviewees indicated that comput-er usage on the part of professors was in no way institutionalized. Of all the universities, only INTEC wasimplementing a university-wide computer literacy plan to get all professors involved with computers.But ma's case was the exception, and when asked if professors showed interest in using the computingservices, and how much they used them, some of the following comments were common:1. [Professors' use of computers isl actually very limited, and that is not recorded. It isvery informal, that is, some professors use computers for their teaching purposes, toprepare classes, or examples for students, but very few hours. The amount of time isreally insignificant. The use of computers by professors is not institutionalized.(Vice-Rector, ow)2. Well, that depends more on what the professor thinks or interprets that thecomputer can do for him, up to what point he thinks it might be beneficial, becauseinformatics professors who are conscious about the use of computers as tools doexpress their interest.... But I still think that professors need to be taught more aboutwhat they can gain through the use of computers, regardless of the area they are in.(Director of informatics, UNPHU)Computer users were asked to rate the adequacy of the location of the computers in theiruniversities. Overall, about 50% of the computer users appeared satisfied with the location of the com-puters in their universities, while 28% said it was inadequate (see Figure 17). As discussed previously,however, the adequacy of the number of computers and their availability were questionable, both fromthe point of view of computer users, and non-users (see Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15).93Figure 17. Percentage of users who said the location of computers was adequate.Electrical power infrastructure. A major issue in the Dominican Republic is the deficiency of thecountry's electrical power infrastructure, which affects every aspect of Dominican life. Over the last threeyears, the quantity and quality of the energy supplied by the public power company has been sodeficient that unpredictable voltage and multiple-hour blackouts have become a daily routine.Since public energy supply is so untrustworthy, universities have been forced to become self-sufficient in electrical power generation. Six of the seven universities surveyed (INmc, O&M, UTESA, UCSD,UNPHU, and Pucmm) currently own one or more power generators. The remaining university, UNIBE, is in theprocess of purchasing its own generator also. Most universities have additional protection for computingequipment in the form of different kinds of UPS (uninterruptible power supplies) and voltage regulators.Interviewees from all universities said that the supply of electricity was good, but only becauseof the use of generators. It is common practice for Dominican universities to ration power consumption,because the public service is so poor that generators often have to run continuously. When asked aboutthis subject, the following comments were common among interviewees:941. Yes, it is mandatory to have a generator. We have three generators that supplypower to the whole campus ... Although we do not have energy problems, we do havea policy of ration during periods of frequent blackouts. (Director of AdministrativeComputing Centre, uvrEc)2. The electricity [problem] has been a very influential factor, particularly on thelaboratory hardware; that is, we have suffered a lot because of high or low voltages at agiven time. Thank God we have the emergency generators that allow us to providestudents with service during normal academic hours ... [Power-related problems] havecost me up to a month without adequate service for the students. (Director ofInformatics, UNPHU)Computer users were asked to rate the adequacy of the supply of electricity, and if it representeda problem while using computers at the university (questions 8-2, and 10-5, respectively). Non-userswere asked if the lack of energy was a reason for not using computers (question 12-8). Overall, profes-sors seem to agree with university officials in that the availability of electrical power is adequate at theiruniversities. About 50% of the computer users rated the supply of energy as "adequate" or "very ade-quate"; 30% rated it as "inadequate" or "very inadequate"; and about 20% did not mark any answer forthis question.As shown in Figure 18, computer users from PUCMM seem to be the most satisfied with the supplyof energy, followed by professors in lisrrEc, O&M, UNIBE, and UNPHU. Users from UT'ESA, however, rated theresource negatively. There was the unusually high rate of non-responses at UCSD described previously.Responses to question 10-5 (whether or not the lack of energy is a problem while using computers at theuniversity) yielded percentages similar to those in Figure 18, and indicated that the majority of users inUCSD were also satisfied with the supply or energy.Responses from the non-users indicated that the lack of energy was not considered a majorimpediment for using computers. Only about 20% of the non-users said that the lack of electricity was areason for them not to use computers. However, the fact that universities have power generators doesnot ensure that universities are totally self-sufficient in that aspect. One of the interviewees explained:95Figure 18. Percentage of users who said the supply of electricity was adequate.In previous instances we have had problems [with the supply of energy], but notbecause of the university, but because there was a fuel crisis in the Dominican Republicand we were unable to obtain sufficient fuel for the generators. (Director ofAdministrative Computing Centre, UNPHU)The crisis this interviewee was referring to happened in summer of 1990, when the governmentwas unable to come up with sufficient funds to purchase the necessary supply of crude oil to keep thecountry running. As a result, the country was brought to a stand-still, and even those institutions whichhad generators were not able to operate properly.Human ResourcesThis study paid very close attention to the human element of educational computing, perhaps itsmost critical component. Several questions were included in both the interviews and the questionnairesto gather data about the availability and experience of the technical staff for computing. Universities'policies on training, support, and incentives to the user were examined, as well as professors' perceptionof the availability and quality of services and support received.96Training IssuesIn general, computer training in Dominican universities is very limited; and at most universitiesthere is no established mechanism to provide such a service, although the basic computing infrastructureneeded is there. In most cases, administrative computing centres offered training to personnel for specif-ic computer applications or for tasks they are required to perform. These training sessions, however, arevery limited in scope, and usually serve the sole purpose of allowing individuals to learn how to use aspecific menu-driven application in a terminal, or word-processing program in a microcomputer, andthey do not provide the user with basic concepts of computers, or tools for them to build upon their newknowledge.One exception to this rule is UNPHU, where the administrative computing centre provides regular-ly scheduled computer awareness seminars, in which basic concepts of computing are discussed, andend-user questions and concerns are answered. The Director of this computing centre explains:I feel that this has helped a lot, and has been very beneficial, because the attitudes ofthe users are different when they understand what a computing centre is ... We meet inan auditorium and hold seminars, and we allow them to ask questions and that allowsus to teach the users, but it also allows us to draw conclusions as to what problems mayexist that we do not know about. (Director of Administrative Computing Centre, UNPHU)However, while administrative training is somewhat common, professor training is close to non-existent. Some universities provide training on demand to interested groups of individuals who requestsuch a course. Others provide continuing education courses which professors can register in. The fol-lowing comments are representative of interviewees' responses when asked what kind of computertraining, if any, was provided for professors:1. No, this has not been systematic ... we are thinking about offering courses andinstitutionalizing [computer training]; for example, the use of computers in general ...(Vide Rector, o&M)9710090P 80E^70R^60C^50E^40N^30T1 020Technical InstituteINTEC^ Univ/ as a studento8Em^PUCMM^ OtherUCSDUNIBE^W4 Univ/ as a professor^UNIVERSITY^UNPHUUTESA02. Not officially. There is nothing official that says that a new professor is going to begiven computer training. It is not like that. Here we offer continuing education coursesand, in some cases, professors will register in courses that interest them ... On certainoccasions we have prepared special courses for groups of professors ... but onlybecause they asked for it. (Director Academic Computing Centre, UNIBE)Of all the universities surveyed, only INTEL had a comprehensive, university-wide computer liter-acy course aimed at making professors aware of the computing resources available to them, and to en-courage them to use computers across the curriculum:Recently, we designed a computer literacy project for professors. We are doing it sothat professors use computers, because in the curriculum reform we have included asmandatory an emphasis on computers in all areas. For the students to become involvedwith computers, professors must also be involved, because otherwise professors do notencourage them [to use computers]. (Vice-rector, INTEL)To find out more about how professors had learned about computers, several questions aboutprofessors' perception of the training offered at their university were included in the questionnaires(questions 4, 10-18, 12-3, 12-11, 16, 17, and 18). As shown in Figure 19, about 87% of the computer usersFigure 19. Percentage of computer users who obtained computer training by different means.98said they received some sort of training, but mostly as students or outside of the university. A minority ofprofessors (21%) received training in courses taken as professors at their university. Overall, about 52%said they received training in a technical institution outside the university, and 51% of computer userssaid they received basic training as students.Half of the computer users indicated that there were not enough training opportunities forprofessors (question 10-18). About 60% of non-users said that the support to learn how to use computerswas nonexistent (question 12-3), or that there was not enough training opportunity for professors (ques-tion 12-11), or both. Figure 20 shows the percentage of professors who said that there was not enoughtraining opportunity, by university.This graph shows that users in mow and EvrEc seemed to be the most satisfied ones, but a largemajority of non-users in these two universities were dissatisfied with their universities' efforts to trainthem. Professors in the other universities showed similar patterns of response.Figure 20. Percentage of professors who thought there was not enough training opportunity.99100% —90% —E0% —70% —60% —50% —40% —30% —20% —HI% — 0 Did not answer▪ Yes, I have participated in one ormore courses in my universityO No courses have been offered■ Some courses offered, but I havenot participated in any of them0%1NTEC^UNIEE^UNPHUUNIVERSITYAccording to informants from each university, only INTEC, UNIBE, and UNPHU have offered theirprofessors in-house training programs in computing exclusively for them. Professors in these universitieswere asked whether they had taken any of these courses, what they learned about, and how they wouldrate them (questions 16, 17, and 18).Only 15% of professors indicated that they had participated in one of the training courses offeredby their university, while 54% indicated that, although they knew that some courses were being offered,they had never participated in any of them. An interesting fact to point out is that 29% of the respondentssaid that no courses had been offered to them. This means either that the courses were offered to aspecific group of professors and were not available to these, or that these professors simply did not knowabout these courses, pointing to a possible communication problem (see Figure 21).From the three universities that had offered computer training courses for professors, those whotook computer courses (this includes users and some non-users) were asked to indicate which topicsthey had learned about in these courses (question 17). Question 17 was divided into five content areasFigure 21. Percentage of professors who were aware of, and given training courses at their university.10019 20 21 22 23^24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 321 2 3 4^5Editing/WordProcessingBoric Concepts aboutComputing EquipmentApplications ofTutotin^&Practice100%90%80%70%60%50%a.40%30%20%10%0%Computers Applications^Prcblem Analysis Hardware^Pedagogical && Society^ & Programming & Software Educational Issuesinto which most computer courses topics may fall: Computers and Society (4 topics), Applications (14topics), Problem Analysis and Programming (5 topics), Hardware and Software Principles (3 topics), andInstructional and Pedagogical Issues (6 topics). Professors marked those topics which had been includedin the courses they had taken.Figure 22 shows the percentage of professors who selected each topic as having been taught inthe courses they took. These courses put much more emphasis on history/importance of computing,programming, hardware and software principles, and certain popular applications, rather than on otheraspects of computing which the literature suggests might be better-suited for professors. For example,very few professors received any kind of training in educational applications, educational use of typicalapplications, or pedagogical issues. In fact, topics under "pedagogical issues" were by far the leastmarked ones, as the figure suggests.Figure 22. Percentage of professors who said these topics were taught in training courses.101Further examination of these responses from each university reveals that the pattern of respons-es was similar in all three universities. According to professors, INIEC concentrates its training in program-ming more than any other university. Of these three universities, UNPHU is the one whose courses includ-ed the most education-specific contents. Topics such as tutoring languages, educationaVrecreationalgames, as well as some instructional and pedagogical issues, appear to have been discussed morefrequently in UNPHU'S courses than in the other two universities, although not by a large margin.Both users and non-users who took one or more of these training courses were asked to rate theoverall quality of the courses, as well as their pedagogical and technical aspects (question 18). As shownin Figure 23, the most varied responses came from DrrEc, perhaps because the actual number of responseswas higher there (n=21) than in the other two universities (n=10, and n=8, respectively). Overall, mostprofessors rated the courses as "Good", but 60% of professors from INFEC rated their courses as "Average"or lower, while about 80% of professors in the other two universities rated the courses as satisfactory.Figure 23. Professors rating of the training courses received in their university.102Support StaffSome universities had personnel specifically assigned to provide assistance to computer users intheir laboratories. The staff usually consisted of one person in charge of the laboratories, and one ormore assistants. The person in charge generally held at least a technical degree in computer science orinformatics from that university and, in some cases, was also a computer science professor. Theassistants and monitors were usually advanced computer science students.Although the availability and experience of the support staff was judged to be adequate by mostinterviewees, one interviewee expressed concern about the fact that the best candidates did not remain inthe university because of the university's inability to pay as well as business. This condition not onlyaffected professors or technical personnel, but students as well, as testified to by the following comments:1. We are trying to reinforce our computing staff but, as you well know, the universitycannot compete in salaries with the [business] market. But we are looking for amechanism to compensate for the differential in salaries, and we are thinking veryseriously to turning this computing centre into a professional services entity [for thepublic]. (Director of Administrative Computing Centre, DrrEc)2. The "monitores" (monitors) are advanced students who are selected by their ownprofessors. These students attend classes and do not pay, and have a very small salary.They learn a lot, in fact, we have problems with that because these students do not lastlong. They learn all the software, all the tricks, and they quickly leave. (Vice-Rector,O&M)Computer-using professors were asked to rate the adequacy of the availability of technicalpersonnel in their university, as well as their experience (questions 8-5, and 8-6, respectively). As shownin Figure 24, less than half (44% overall) of the computer users were satisfied with the availability oftechnical personnel; professors in om appear to be the most satisfied ones with this resource. Figure 25shows that computer users were only slightly more satisfied with the experience of the technical person-nel that is available.103100% 80% ....a Did not answerEl InadequateI Adequate60% .-(,C1.1do 40% Imo20% -.0%INTEC^O&M^PUCMM UCSD^UNIBE UNPHU^UTESAUNIVERSITYComputer users were also asked if the lack of technical support to operate or maintain theequipment was a problem they experienced while using computers at the university (question 10-16).Overall, the vast majority of computer users said this was not a problem, although a good percentage ofprofessors from UNPHU and UTESA did mark this option (see Figure 26).Figure 24. Percentage of users who said the availability of technical personnel was adequate.Figure 25. Percentage of users who said the experience of technical personnel was adequate.104Figure 26 Percentage of professors who thought poor maintenance of equipment was a problem.Logical ResourcesThroughout this study, logical resources are factors that affect the development and use ofcomputing technology in educational institutions, but are not inherent to the problems discussed in theprevious two sections, although are closely related to them. Among those, the availability of information,language-related issues, and administrative support and motivation, play a very important role in thedevelopment of educational computing, and thus are examined in this section.The questionnaires included questions for gathering data about information (questions 5, 8-7,10-9), language (10-10, 11, 12-6), and administrative support (10-15, 12-9), while the interviews looked atthese areas from the universities' point of view. Observation, informal inquiries, and the researcher'spersonal experiences helped put these data into context.105Availability of InformationEducational computing is a dynamic field where the distribution of information about newdevelopments might be critical for the implementation and use of its related technologies. While trainingand even mere exposure to the field surely conveys some of this information to administrative personnel,students, and professors, these are not efficient information sources in Dominican universities for at leasttwo major reasons. First, as reported previously, the availability of training is limited. Second, professors'exposure to computing technologies is even more limited. A review of information policies of thesurveyed universities reveals that there is no established mechanism to distribute information aboutcomputing, let alone educational computing, among administrative personnel, students, or professors inany of the surveyed universities.In most universities there is no way of distributing any information about computing; in others,such as MEC, and UNIBE, the distribution of information is left to departmental newsletters, mostly limitedto announcing the arrival of books to the library, or the discussion of computer science topics. Informa-tion on computing, or educational computing for that matter, is basically left to interested individuals tolook for, but sources are limited. Not all universities have subscriptions to computing magazines, forexample, and most of these are in English, making them even less useable. Testifying to these facts,computer-using professors indicated that they keep up-to-date in computing technology mainly throughfriends or colleagues, and magazines, while a very small number of professors said their universityprovided them with this information.Figure 27 shows the percentages of computer-using professors who selected the different possi-ble sources of information as being the ones they used to keep up-to-date (question 4). It is very clearthat the main source of information for the professors is word of mouth (69% overall selected this option),followed by computer magazines (selected by 46%), and that the universities do not appear to provide1061NTECO&MPUCMMUCSDUNIBEUNIVERSITY^UNPHUFriends and ColleaguesMagazinesOtherUniversity Info100P soE^70R^60C^50E^40N^30T^20100UTESAthis information (9% overall selected this option). All response patterns were quite similar, except forUNPHU, where there was a very low response rate to this question.Figure 27. Sources of information for computer users who keep up-to-date in computing.Computer users were also asked to rate the adequacy of the general information on computersas a resource available at their university (question 8-7). Figure 28 shows that computer-using professorswere split in this issue. Overall, 39% of them said this resource was inadequate, while 38% said it wasadequate (27% did not answer the question). Most users at INTEL, UNPHU, and UTESA who answered thisquestion rated this resource as inadequate. The opposite was true for the other universities.An interesting result pointed out previously also suggests that distribution of information withinuniversities is deficient. About 29% of professors who answered question 16 (Figure 21) expressed thatthey did not know there had been computer courses available for professors, even though these courseshad been offered by their universities. Further investigation suggests that the distribution of informationis more efficient among computer users, and that non-users have less chance to get this information.10750 —4540 a 359M 30'aa,..,C 4 25u,0m 20P 15o No courses have been offeredII Some courses offered, but I havenot participated in any of themII Yes, I have participated in one ormore courses in my university1050USERS^NON-USERSFigure 28. Percentage of professors who thought availability of information was adequate.As an example, Figure 29 shows the absolute number of users and non-users that answeredquestion 16, on the availability of training courses. It is evident that non-users are less aware of trainingcourses being offered in their universities, since more non-users than users said that no courses had beenoffered to them in their universities.Figure 29. Number of users and non-users that were aware of, and participated in training courses.108Language ProblemsOne of the first problems that comes to mind when discussing the implementation and use ofcomputing technologies in Latin America relates to the cultural aspects embedded within these technolo-gies. One of these aspects is the fact that most new developments in all areas of educational computingtake place in developed countries in languages other than Spanish.The majority of software used in Dominican universities is available only in English, except forthe administrative software that is developed in-house. Three-fourths of the computer users indicatedthat less than 10% of the applications they used were in Spanish, and about half of those said that none ofthe applications they used were in Spanish (see Figure 30).Figure 30. Percentage of the applications used by professors that are in Spanish.Surprisingly, this did not seem to be a problem for professors. Computer users were asked if thefact that applications were in English was a problem they faced when using computers (question 10-10),and non-users were asked if this was a considered a reason for not using computers (question 6). Only10921% of computer users selected this as a problem, and only 5% of the non-users considered it a reason fornot using computers.Administrative Support and MotivationA major factor in implementing a good educational computing program in a higher educationinstitution is the level of support and motivation that the administration provides. In a sense, administra-tive support is a critical resource, as well as a provider of resources, such as those discussed throughoutthis chapter. According to the administrative interviews, all Dominican universities seem to support con-tinuing computing developments, and most administrators interviewed expressed the importance thattheir universities place on computing, not only for administrative functions, but for educational purposesas well.Administration support for computing in Dominican universities is most evident in the form ofefforts to improve their physical computing infrastructure within their modest economic conditions.Other components of educational computing, however, seem to have been seriously neglected. Forexample, with the possible exception of INTEC, educational computing support efforts in the form ofestablished training policies, or educational programs for professors, and personnel are not evident inDominican universities, despite an obvious need for training that is recognized by some of the interview-ees, and evidence that such programs can be highly beneficial.1. It is not going to be enough that they [students] take an "Introduction toinformatics" course ... For the students to become involved with computers, professorsmust also be involved. (Vice-rector, Ir. MO2. I still think that professors need to be taught more about how much they can gainthrough the use of computers, regardless of the area they are in. (Director of informat-iCS, UNPHU)1103. I feel that this [computer education seminars] has helped a lot, and has been verybeneficial, because the attitudes of the users are different when they understand what acomputing centre is. (Director of Administrative Computing Centre, UNPHU)Other sources of motivation have worked somewhat better. Most universities either have, orwere planning to implement programs that allowed professors to purchase computing equipment withfinancial support to pay for them through the university, taking advantage of import duty exemptions thatthe government provides for educational computing equipment. Such plans have met with mixedsuccess at different universities, and are at risk of disappearing, as the Vice-rector of O&M explains:Universities, by law, are exempted [from import duties] when importing certainequipment. Right now, since six months ago, these privileges have been revoked.Universities are paying import duties like everyone else who wants to importcomputing equipment.A number of questions about motivational aspects were included in the questionnaires, to get aperspective about what professors thought about the support available at their university. Computerusers were asked if the following were problems with computing at their university: "There is not enoughadministrative support", "There is not enough financial support", There is not enough interest on the partof professors", and "There is not enough interest on the part of students" (questions 10-19 through 10-22).As Figure 31 shows, a major concern in most universities was the lack of financial support,which is a predominant problem in the Dominican Republic, and particularly so in crowded and under-budgeted educational institutions, such as UFESA. Overall, 46% of the computer users selected thisproblem, while 39% said there was not enough administrative support, and 36% said that there was notenough time to learn about computing. This does not mean that there was a consensus as to what themajor problems are, however. Different options were selected more frequently than others in differentuniversities. For example, professors from O&M selected the "Not enough time to learn about computing"option more often, professors from UNIBE selected the "Not enough professor interest" more often, andprofessors from UNPHU selected the "Not enough administrative support" more frequently than any other.111;11-7.-11111111"/0Ze.,„L..,*44,01',41(P-^4411PJ200 Al^ Not enough financial supportNot enough administrative support4%0 Ilk Not enough time to learnNot enough professor interestNot enough student interest1009080pE^70R^6050E^40N^301NTECO&MPUCMMUCSDUNIBEUNIVERSITY^UNPHUUrEsAFigure 31. Percentage of computes users who experienced administrative/organizational problems.Non-users were asked whether the following were reasons for not using computers: "I do nothave time to learn about computers", "I am not interested in learning how to use computers", "There isinsufficient guidance/experience to help professors use computers", "There is not enough administrativesupport", and "There is not enough financial support" (see Figure 32).Overall, the number of non-users who selected these reasons for not using computers wasmoderate, averaging 31 out of 110 (not taking into account the expected low frequency of selection ofthe "Not interested in learning about computers" option). Non-users selected more frequently the "I donot have time to learn about computers" (34%), and both the lack of financial support, and the lack ofguidance/experience to help professors use computers (32% for both).Again, professors in different universities answered differently, although it is difficult to identifyany specific response pattern. The major concern in NEW, UCSD, and UNPHU, seemed to be the lack offinancial support. Professors in O&M, UTESA, and to a lesser extent, UNIBE, seemed to be more concerned1121009080P 70ER^60C^50E^40N30T20100INTECO&MPUCMMUCSDUNIVERSITYUNIBEUNPHUUTESANot enough time to learnNot enough financial supportNot enough guidance to help profsNot enough administrative supportNo interest in learning computingFigure 32. Percentage of non-users who thought these were reasons for not using computers.about the limited time available for learning about computers; and professors from PUCMM, UNPHU, andUTESA expressed concern about the lack of guidance and experience to help professors use computers.One point that can be made is that those universities with the greater number of students (and the largeststudent to teacher ratio) were those in which more professors thought lack of time was a reason for notbeing able to learn about computers.The Use of Computers in Dominican UniversitiesOne important aspect of educational computing that this study is concerned with is the actualuse of computers in Dominican universities. Like the previous section, this one is divided into twosub-sections that address the major aspects of the use of computers in universities: the roles of computersin higher education, and attitudes toward computers. First, there is extensive literature on the subject ofroles of computers in higher education, and it is of interest to see to what extent these definitions apply to113Dominican universities, by examining the reported use of computers by administrative personnel andprofessors. Second, an analysis of the attitudes toward computing may provide some insight into whycomputers are used the way they are in Dominican universities.The Roles of Computers in Dominican UniversitiesAccording to the analysis of the literature presented in Chapter 2, computers play three distinctroles in educational institutions, in the areas of information, instruction, and productivity. This sectionexamines these three aspects of the use of computers in Dominican universities through the data gath-ered from the interviews and questionnaires. Then, a more detailed analysis of the applications used byDominican professors is presented.Use of Computers for Information ManagementThere are several uses of computers that fall into the category of information management: theuse of computers for administrative services, support for research and library systems, and the use ofelectronic mail throughout campus. The literature suggests that computers are usually introduced first inhigher education institutions for information management purposes, and Dominican universities appearto be no exception. While the greatest use of computers in Dominican universities was found to be in thearea of management of information, most of this use was concentrated on administrative systems, whilethe use of computers in other areas of information management was very limited.All universities surveyed used computers for the management of administrative information,such as student registration, accounting, and payroll. Administrative computing in these universities ismostly a centralized process, however, where administrative departments send their data to the comput-ing centre (either manually or via terminals) where the data are processed. A few administrative taskswere handled independently by some departments in PUCMM, MEC, and UNIBE, using microcomputers. As114an example, the uses of computers for administrative tasks in DrrEc was described by its Vice-rector asfollows:The services offered by the Computing Centre are vital for the control of academicsystems. All academic control of the students is done by the Computing Centre,although the Registration Department does not entrust everything to them. The currenttrend is to decentralize. All accounting, for example, is to be done by the AccountingDepartment, with advice from the Computing Centre....Here in the Rector's Office, wehave our own PCs, and we do our own work with them.The use of computers for the support of research activities was explicitly reported only at IINNECand PUCMM, as part of the major functions of the computing centre. In both cases, the computing centreprovided data entry services as well as data processing services to interested parties. The access to theseservices, however, was mostly limited to specific departments, or projects, and it was not readily availablefor students or professors, for example. Also, only one university (iNrEc) reported using computers toassist in the management of library information, although other universities also seemed interested in thisuse of computers. The lack of support for research activities is probably part of a major problem that thisarea is facing in the Dominican Republic and Latin America, and that was described in Chapter 2. TheVice-Rector of omi explains:In our country, the aspect of research in universities is something that has been talkedabout a lot. This area does not have the prominence that it should have, mainlybecause of the lack or economic resources, something all institutions of this kind sufferfrom, since we are not in a position that we can say we have a budget of so manymillions [of pesos] to dedicate to research; we are not in such a position, not own, norany other university in the country.The use of electronic mail was not implemented in any of the universities at any level, except for rarecases in which some departments or educational projects had access to international electronic mailservices. This is the case despite the fact that five out of the seven universities in this study had the inher-ent capability of electronic mail in their (uNix) systems. The real reasons why electronic mail is not115implemented in these universities are unknown, but two possibilities come to mind. First, the fact thatadministrative computer systems are, in many cases, physically centralized (i.e. computers and terminalsare located within one or two rooms), rendering electronic mail useless since the computing power is notreally in the hands of administrative personnel, but computer operators. Second, there is reason to believethat computer users are simply not educated about the benefits of electronic mail (only 8 professorsreported receiving any instruction about telecommunication, electronic mail, and computer networking).Use of Computers for InstructionThere are two major aspects of the instructional use of computers which can been identified: theuse of computers for instruction (or instruction with computers), and instruction about computers. Do-minican universities have been using computers to teach about computers ever since computers werefirst introduced to them. However, there appears to be almost no knowledge about how to use comput-ers as an instructional tool in subjects other than computer literacy.A major point about computers and instruction that became evident through the interviews, andthroughout the development of this study, is that the use of computers in Dominican universities washighly, if not uniquely, tied to the field of computer science. All universities in this study offered a com-puter science program, and the use of computers for instructional purposes was, in most cases, limitedonly to this field.Instruction with computers. There are different ways in which computers can be used forteaching, some of which were mentioned in Chapter 2. Among those, for example, computer softwarecan be used in the classroom to teach certain concepts in many subjects, and to help students visualizecertain physics or chemistry concepts with the help of graphics and animation. In other cases, computerscan be used as tools that help professors deliver the instructional material, such as when used with116projection devices. Computers can also help with classroom management tasks, such as keeping gradesand preparing exams.In Dominican universities, the use of computers in this manner was found to be practicallyunknown. Computer use was mostly limited to the fields of computer science, and engineering, in whichcase the computer was not being used as a tool for instruction, but rather as the subject of instruction(this kind of use is discussed in the next section).In some instances, computers were used outside the computer science field, as electronic toolsfor teaching specific courses; such was the case for the field of architecture, where computer-aideddesign (co) programs were taught to students, or in accounting, where some professors taught studentshow to use some off-the-shelf accounting package. However, since for most students in these areas, thiswas their first, and possibly only exposure to computers, a good portion of these courses was dedicatedto teaching students how to use the computer, or specific characteristics of the application programs theywould use.Only INTEC had plans to implement a computer-aided instruction (cm) program with the establish-ment of a cAi laboratory, and the acquisition, or development of CAI software:There are plans ... [to set up] a computer-aided instruction laboratory, with CAIapplications. Right now there is nothing in relation to tools of that kind....Those kindsof [software] packages do not exist here....There are plans to develop such software.(Director of Computing Centre, wrrEc).Computer users in all universities were asked to mark whether or not the following were prob-lems that they experienced when using computers for the classroom: "There is not enough help tosupervise students who use computers", "There are problems when trying to integrate computers to thecurriculum", "Professors lack the necessary knowledge to use computers for educational purposes","There is insufficient guidance/experience to help professors use computers".1179080PE^70R 60C^50E^4030UNIVERSITYNot enough guidance to help profsProfs lack knowledge of comps for educNot enough help to supervise studentsProblems integrating comps to curriculum100As Figure 33 suggests, the most frequently selected problems were the lack of guidance to helpprofessors use computers (48% overall), and professors' lack of knowledge about how to use computersfor educational purposes (45% overall). Professors from INTEC, UNIBE, UNPHU, and urEsA felt the strongestabout the first one, while professors from PUCMM selected the latter more often. The problem that wasselected the least was related to the integration of computers to the curriculum (26% overall). This isinteresting, since half of the professors who selected this option as a problem were from INTEC. In fact,many professors from uNrEc found that all of these were problems they experienced with the use ofcomputers for the classroom. The reason for this might well be that INTEC is the only university currentlyimplementing a university-wide computer-usage program, in which professors are being stronglyencouraged to integrate computers in all areas of study. Thus, professors in INTEC are apparently experi-encing problems that professors in other universities are not, possibly because of a lack of exposure tocomputers.Figure 33. Percentage of computes users who experienced problems using computers for instruction.118Instruction about computers. Of the two types of uses of computers for instructional purposes,instruction about computers was by far the most popular in Dominican universities. As was evident fromthe analysis of the organization of computing services reported previously in this chapter, all universitieshad laboratories for the use of computer science students. These laboratories were also used in someinstances to teach computer literacy to other students, professors, and administrative personnel.As mentioned in the introduction to this section, the use of computers for instruction in theDominican Republic appeared to be uniquely tied to the area of computer science. For example, whendiscussing the role of computing in the university, the Vice-rector of wrEc explained: "We also have acomputer laboratory because we have the career of computer science." The director of the educationalcomputing centre at ow also confirmed that use of the computing resources was restricted almostexclusively by computer science students. Computer laboratories in all universities were used by thesestudents mainly for programming courses, (such as BASIC, RPG, COBOL, PASCAL, or c) or to learn a specificsoftware package (such as Lotus 1-2-3, dbase, Oracle, etc.), and to practice the concepts taught in moreadvanced courses.On the other hand, the use of computers by students of fields other than computer science,although limited, has been slowly expanding. All universities have been implementing computer literacycourses for all students over the last few years, or at least offered computer education courses throughtheir continuing education programs. The Administrative Vice-rector or PUCIAM, for example, said that thecurrent trend was to view the computer as a useful "tool", in all areas of specialization. Otherinterviewees agreed with this view:1. In this country, and in this university, we use computers for instruction specificallyin the area of informatics. I am personally trying to motivate a project to use computersin other areas, not only in heath sciences or informatics. (Vice-rector, MESA)1192. O&M has as a priority to develop the area of computer science, in the academic area,in research, as well as in instruction—meaning continued education, in this case. Wethink that it is very important to develop the field [of computer science], not only forcomputer science students, but for all areas of study because we think that [computers]are a very useful tool for any activity. (Vice-rector, o&M)3. In general, we have students from Hoteleria [Hotel Management/Tourism], Banca[Commerce/Banking], and Law, who take an "Introduction to the computer" course,where they use computers, but oriented toward their need; for example, law studentslearn text processing, banking students learn spreadsheets, and so on. (Director,Educational Computing Centre, ucsD)As it currently stands, however, most of these courses concentrate on teaching how to use aspecific type of computer, or software package. Experience shows that these courses are also of a highlytechnical nature, covering many hardware aspects, and dedicating a lot of time to operating systemcommands, usually MS-DOS. Most universities offered continuing education programs for professors, andfor the general public. A unique case is this respect is that of PUCMM, which created a semi-independentinstitution called Centro de Estudios y Servicios Empresariales/cEYSE (Centre for Business Studies andServices), through which many kinds of computer literacy courses were offered.Use of Computers for ProductivityThe data gathered about the use of applications by professors—reported in the nextsection—gives an indication that the use of application software by Dominican professors followed thesame pattern as reported by others in the literature, that is, the use of applications such as word process-ing, spreadsheets, and database managers, was quite common. These data do not show, however, howthese applications were being used, other than whether they were used for personal or educationalmatters. Even so, the data on the information and instructional uses of computers reported previously, aswell as informal observations made in the universities, suggest that applications such as word processors,120spreadsheets, and graphics, were mostly used for productivity purposes (office work), while databases,statistics programs, and programming languages were mostly used as tools for supporting the informationor instructional aspects of higher education computing.The use of computers for personal productivity seemed to be limited mostly by the lack ofavailability of computers, rather than lack of understanding of the benefits of off-the-shelf software forpersonal productivity. Most universities have personal computers for secretarial and, in some cases, exec-utive use, but in very limited numbers. For example, INIEC reported having "one or two" personal com-puters in each of their four academic faculties, as well as four other personal computers in administrativedepartments; there was no report of this kind of use of personal computers in UTESA; other universitiesreported relatively more availability of computers throughout administrative and academic departments.It is obvious that economic constraints affect this use of computers significantly, since universi-ties seemed to attach more importance to the use of computers for information, and instruction, than tothe use of them as tools to enhance the productivity of any one individual. For example, the Administra-tive Vice-rector of PUCMM indicated that the priority areas of investment in computing were, in order: bigcomputing systems (multiuser hosts), microcomputers laboratories (more powerful, and efficient micro-computers), computer terminals, the acquisition of application software, the acquisition of productivitytools (software/hardware), and computers for individual classes.Professors Uses of ComputersItem 7 in the questionnaire presented a list of applications that might be used by professors in aneducational setting. Professors were asked to indicate whether or not they used each application, howfrequently they used them, as well as whether they used these applications for personal matters,educational matters, or both.Overall, the use of applications by Dominican professors seemed to conform to what the litera-121LOGO^7Music^7Data Acquisition (Labs)^8CADSimulationsDrill & PracticeOther LanguagesGamesGraphic Arts/DrawingStatsBASICDatabaseGraphicsSpreadsheetsWord Processing2124323842434550565664830^10^20^30^40^50^60^70^80^90^100PERCENTture shows as the norm. The use of word processing applications was by far the most popular use ofcomputers, followed by spreadsheets, graphics, and database managers (see Figure 34). Overall, about83% of professors indicated that they used word processing applications, 64% said they used spread-sheets, 56% used databases and graphics applications, and 50% used the Basic programming language.The rest of the applications were used by fewer than half of the professors.Figure 34. Percentage of professors who use each kind of computer application.A surprising result here is that the use of the BASIC programming language seemed to be verypopular, since half of the professors indicated they used this application. Some possible explanations forthis are that the use of BASIC is reminiscent of the kind of technical training that seemed most popular inthe country, that BASIC has always had the reputation for being the easiest programming language to learn,and that most microcomputers come with some version of BASIC for the novice to use.The data about the number of professors who said they used specific applications do not yieldsufficient information about how much these applications are actually being used. For this reason,122professors were asked to indicate how often they used each application, by marking whether they usedthem "Rarely", "Sometimes", "Often", or "Always" ("Never" means that they did not use this application).Again, word processing, spreadsheets, graphics, and databases were ranked as the mostfrequently used applications. As Figure 35 reveals, however, that the use of "other languages" (such ascoma, RPG, PASCAL, or c) and the use of drill and practice applications are, in fact, used more frequentlythan are BASIC, statistical packages, graphic arts/drawing, and games.LOGO Itaal 7 O RarelyMusic^7-1 7Data Acquisition (Labs)^18 O SometimesCAD^VZ./. MIN IN 2112 OlenSimulations I21Drill & Practice fillIMME:El 32 ■ AlwaysOther Languages 11111111=== 38Games^1•21111=21^42G ophic Airs/Drawing^71/7/Z Otilil^43StarsBASIC^"^EMANIEVEI =MI 50Database 56JGraphim 211 56Spreadsheets^7^/ 11SESIIMBERII 64Word Processing II^830^10^20^30^40^50 60 70^80^90 100PEPCEIsifFigure 35. Frequency with which professors who use each kind of computer application.The obvious explanation for the more frequent use of other languages, and drill and practiceprograms is that these are the kind of packages that were used for teaching programming and othercomputer-related subjects to computer computer science and engineering students, as well as studentsfrom other fields. Thus, professors who used these packages probably used them in computer courseson a daily basis.123BASIC 50M:1:1083=1,4,11=1^I 64Word ProcessingDatabase^ 56Graphics 56Spreadsheets I0^10^ID^30^40^50^60^70^80^90PERCENTGraphic Arts/DrawingStarslatERERME 4321OM I2481018^13 23345LOGO 11. 6Music J 7Data Acquisi nn (labs) MO 8CADSimulationsDrill & PracticeOther LanguagesGames0 Educational0 Both■ PersonalFurther examination of the responses to this question reveals that professors used theseapplications, in general, mostly for personal use, or for both personal and educational matters. As shownin Figure 36, except for word processing, spreadsheets, other languages, and drill and practice applica-tions, professors main use of applications was personal.Figure 36 Percentage of professors who use applications for personal, educational use, or both.For most applications, a good number of professors indicated that they used these applicationsboth for personal, as well as educational purposes. The use of computers for purely educational purpos-es was rare, except in cases where the use of applications for other personal purposes makes little sense,such as in the case of the "drill and practice" applications.Professors' Attitudes toward ComputersThe scale used to measure professors' attitudes toward computers was a subset of a computerattitude scale developed by Brenda Loyd, of the University of Virginia (Loyd, 1986). The original scale124consisted of forty items, divided into four sub-scales: computer confidence, anxiety, liking, andusefulness.Since the study of professors' attitudes toward computers is but a small part of this study, it wasdecided that a subset of the original scale was to be used, so a total of twelve items were extracted fromit, three from each one of the sub-scales. An analysis of the reliability of the items in the new scale wasconducted to ensure that the stability of the test was not significantly affected by the reduced number ofitems, or translation of these from English to Spanish.Table 5Reliability of the modified computer attitude scale (LERTAP output).LERTAP 2.0 TOTAL TEST STATISTICSTEST No. 1 Professors' Attitudes Toward Learning and Working with ComputersNumber of individuals = 194.00^Number of items = 12.00Mean^= 40.55 Highest score^= 48.00Standard deviation^=^8.20^Lowest score^= 0.00^Source of variance D.F.^S.S.^M.S.Individuals^193.00^1081.50^5.60Items 11.00^154.71^14.06Residual 2123.00^913.63^0.43Total^ 2327.00^2149.85^0.92Hoyt estimate of reliability^=^0.92Standard error of measurement^=^2.18No. Subtests with non-zero wt^=^4.00Cronbach's a for composite^=^0.92As Table 5 shows, the attitude test was found to be highly reliable, with a Hoyt estimate ofreliability of 0.92. Additionally, a principal components factor analysis was performed on this scale toinvestigate its dimensionality, threatened by the small number of items selected for each sub-scale. Theanalysis produced a one factor solution using the rule of eigenvalues greater than one.125These results (see Table 6) show that this scale is, in fact, unidimensional with a large proportionof the variance accounted for by a single factor. Because of this, the analysis of the four sub-scales wasdropped, and professors attitudes were examined only through the total scale score.Table 6Principal components factorial analysis results (SYSTAT output).SYSTAT 5.1^PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSISLATENT ROOTS (EIGENVALUES)1 2 3 42.681 0.518 0.425 0.376COMPONENT LOADINGS1 2 3 4Confidence Subscale 0.829 0.265 0.350 0.347Liking Subscale 0.830 -0.127 -0.492 0.231Anxiety Subscale 0.824 0.377 -0.080 -0.414Usefulness Subscale 0.791 -0.538 0.233 -0.174VARIANCE EXPLAINED BY COMPONENTS1 2 3 42.681 0.518 0.425 0.376PERCENT OF TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED1 2 3 467.034^12.951^10.620^9.395Professors' responses to the modified computer attitude scale (question 13) were coded andscored appropriately (Loyd, personal communication, December 18, 1990). Higher scores mean morepositive attitudes toward learning and working with computers. Professors' attitude toward computersappear to be very high, with a total mean score of 29 points, out of a possible maximum of 36 points.Scores across universities were fairly consistent, with the least positive total scores (average of27.7 to 29.4) found in UTESA, O&M, UCSD, and UNPHU, and the highest (average of 31.0 to 31.4) in PUCMM, UNIBE,126UTESAUNPHUFn UNIBEP UCSDn PUCMMO&MINTEC10^20^30^40ATTITUDE SCOREFigure 37. Distribution of professors' attitudes toward computers across universities.and INTEC, in that order. As illustrated in the boxplot in Figure 37, the ranges of scores is relatively wide,particularly in UTESA, UCSD, and O&M.This highly positive attitude toward the use of computers was evident during the interviews, andalso in the questionnaires. Professors' answers to question 23 in their questionnaire (reported later in thissection) show that professors—users and non-users alike—hold high regard for all aspects of computing,and that they feel more should be done to give them access to computing. Attitudes of users andnon-users show an unexpectedly small difference, and many non-users show attitude scores as high asthose of computer users (see Figure 38).USERSNON-USERS H*^* *0^10^20^30^40ATTITUDE SCOREFigure 38. Distribution of attitudes toward computers for computer users and non-users.127El Users0 Non-usersI Figure 39 suggests the same is true for all universities. In fact, with the exception of urFsA, andUNIBE, attitudes of non-users are almost equal to those of users, with the only difference that non-usersshow greater range of scores.UTESAUNPHUUNIBEUCSDPUCMMO&MINTEC0^10^20^30^40ATTITUDE SCOREFigure 39. Distribution of professors' attitudes toward computers across universities.Question 23 in the questionnaire was an open-ended "comment" space, in which professorswere encouraged to comment about any aspect of the study, or educational computing in general. Sur-prisingly, about 26% of professors wrote some kind of comment, mostly about computing technology, itsimportance, and many of the problems that educational computing faces in the Dominican Republic.The different responses to question 23 were coded and tabulated. By far the most commoncomment had to do with the importance of computing. Other comments related to how computersshould be integrated into classrooms, and the need for information, training, and of providing professorswith access to computing technology. Also, professors pointed to different current or potential problemsof integrating computing into education, such as cost, deficient electrical infrastructure of the country,and de-humanization of the teaching-learning process.128Some of the comments were chosen to exemplify the kind of attitude these professors presentedtoward computing, as well as some of the problems the appeared concerned about:1. It is interesting that the use of computers reaches education, but only as a valuablemedium (which it is) and not as a substitute of the professor, because the professor-student relationship is of vital importance in the teaching-learning process.2. The use of computers in education (like any other type of advanced technology) isvery limited because of its cost. I think the use of computers in education would be agreat advancement on our educational system.3. Universities should offer courses on pedagogical uses of informatics. The majorityof courses that are available in and out of the country are too expensive for professorsto pay for.4. Computers constitute a valuable tool in the learning process. It allows the studentto concentrate in the use of different techniques, rather than the calculation process.Overall, professors comments appear to confirm many of the issues discussed throughout thisstudy. One computer science professor with experience from different universities, enumerated some ofthe different problems professors face with the following remarks, among others:1. Dominican universities do not have a policy of dedicating resources and efforts totraining their teaching staff or it is simply not obvious if this is so. The universities inwhich I have worked [three different ones] do not offer training courses to theirteaching staff.2. Magazines are expensive, salaries are low. That forces professors into a situationwhere they cannot keep up to date with developed countries' technology and markets.3. [Computing resources mentioned in question 8] are usually adequate for thestudents, but not so for professors.129CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe main goal of this study was to describe and assess the current status of educational com-puting in higher education in the Dominican Republic. To achieve this goal, a survey was conductedamong administrative and technical personnel, as well as professors from seven major universities in thecountry.Two major aspects of educational computing in the Dominican Republic were investigated anddescribed. First, a description was made of the availability and perceived quality of the physical, human,and logical resources for computing, which the literature shows as the essential elements of educationalcomputing. Second, the roles that computers play in the areas of information, instruction, and pro-ductivity were examined, according to their use by administrative personnel and professors, and theattitudes of professors toward learning and working with computers.In the following sections, these two aspects of educational computing are discussed, andconclusions are drawn based on the information gathered through the survey, as well as the availableliterature on the subject. Then, several possible ways to improve the development of educational com-puting in higher education are proposed, in the form of general recommendations that focus on theparticular needs of the Dominican Republic, and available resources. Finally, limitations of this study,and suggestions for further research are presented.The Status of Educational Computing in Dominican UniversitiesThe field of educational computing includes all applications of computers in education, and theirrole in educational technology including planning and organizational strategies. Dominican universitiesseem to have developed a narrow vision of educational computing and the implementation of computingtechnology has been geared almost exclusively to the areas of administration and computer science.130Even in these areas, implementations of policies, strategies, and planning are either vague, or non-existent.Control over academic computing is either completely under, or heavily influenced by, thedepartments of computer science, regardless of the kind of organizational approach used in eachuniversity. This is problematic since, because of this, the educational benefits of computing are limitedby those departments' view of educational computing. Interviewees from the administration also seemedto imply that educational computing is uniquely tied to computer science. For example, one universityofficial said that, "We have a computing laboratory because [italics added] we offer the career ofcomputer science." Another one said that the computing centre, "Also serves as laboratory for computerscience [italics added] students." When asked about the role of computers in education, one administratorstarted by saying, "We have a school of informatics."On the other hand, some progress has been made, and Dominican universities appear to be at aturning point in their understanding of computing technology and its implications for higher education.Computer integration and training programs such as those at INTEC, for example, are encouraging firststeps toward comprehensive educational computing implementations. Well-intentioned—if not so wellinformed, or supported—ideas were also evident throughout the interviews.The fact remains, however, that the economic limitations of Dominican universities permeateevery aspect of educational computing, making progress difficult. This is made clear in the followingdiscussion on the different components of educational computing—physical, human, and logical re-sources—and their current status in the country.Physical ResourcesFor Dominican universities the most expensive resources are the physical resources. Computinghardware is very expensive, costing at least twice as much as it would in developed countries. Problems131with the supply of electricity from the government have caused, and are still causing major problems andexpense, both in the form of the need to acquire and maintain generators, as well as damage caused toelectronic equipment because of the poor quality of the electricity that is available. Moreover, thecountry is totally dependent on imported oil to run the nation's electrical generators and the universities'own generators.These realities have created a vision of computers as "precious hardware", rather than as pro-ductivity tools: a vision that seems to be changing slowly. Universities are starting to move away fromcentralized-only computing, toward more decentralized environments in which more computing poweris placed in the hands of individuals. For example, the current trend in minicomputing technology is tomove away from once-popular vendor-specific environments, such as IBM S/34 and s/36 minicomputers, toopen systems that run UNIX, and allow for extensive inter-connectivity options and the development ofmulti-vendor, multi-platform environments. In the microcomputer area, however, less progress isevident. First and second generation ism-compatible computers running MS-DOS are the only kind avail-able in significant numbers, little networking is supported, and newer computer technologies are non-existent. The concept of "workgroup computing" is still unknown.Microcomputing resources are probably most important for the integration of computing into theeducational system, because these are the least expensive and the ones that professors and students fromall areas would use the most. Microcomputer-based environments such as that at om are cost effective,and professors in this study seem to agree with this fact.On the software side, the most significant problem seems to be the shortage of manuals andsupport materials. Although not formally explored in this study, the only feasible explanation for thissituation is the widespread use of unauthorized copies of application software in the country. Also, thereseems to be no educational software available, and this explains why computers are not used for in-structional purposes at all.132Computer laboratories in all universities are, in theory, dedicated to students and professors fromall areas. In practice, however, very few non-computer science students or professors use the servicesprovided by these laboratories, and there are no incentives for them to do so. Users and non-users alikesaid that the computers were not available to them, and very few new computer users were found in thisstudy. Part of this is due to the limited number of computers, but better use could be made of theavailable computing resources, to enable professors—users and non-users alike—to have more access tocomputing.Human ResourcesThe literature shows that development of human resources is important for the introduction andintegration of new technologies into educational systems, but this aspect of educational computing hasbeen neglected in Dominican higher education. Dominican universities put a lot of effort into upgradingtheir physical computing resources, but little is being done to upgrade professors' knowledge of com-puting or to dedicate computing staff to educational computing matters.Of all the universities surveyed, only irrrEc was in the process of establishing an official policy ofencouraging and training professors university-wide. None of the universities had a formal educationalcomputing program covering the major points outlined in this study. A number of reasons could be citedfor the lack of policies and implementation of continuing education programs in educational computing.Among those would be the limited number of computers available, the vision of computing as a toolexclusive to computer science, general lack of knowledge about the need and potential of educationalcomputing, and economic limitations. However, it may be that none of these reasons are as important asthe fact that there are very few educational computing specialists in these universities to lead themthrough the changes necessary to implement successful educational computing programs. In con-sequence, educational computing is implemented without appropriate consideration of major issues.133Training programs for professors and administrative personnel are available in only a few uni-versities, and professors have only limited access to them. These training programs are highly technicaland present a business-like approach to computing, rather than focusing on aspects of computing that aremore appropriate to an educational environment such as the uses of computers for information, in-struction, and productivity. Even so, training programs and seminars seem to have had a positive impacton professors and administrative personnel who have had access to them, and many people in theuniversities seemed to be aware of this, and would like to see more of them.Logical ResourcesEven though resources like information, and administrative support and motivation are probablythe least expensive compared to the cost of computing hardware or software, these resources appear tobe in very limited supply. Professors, especially non-users, indicated that they did not receive enoughsupport, motivation, or information about computing to become involved with this technology.The unavailability of information is also evident at the managerial level, accentuated by a lack ofeducational computing specialists. Software documentation, support materials, and other informationsources are in short supply, and are usually in English. The language was not deemed to be a problemby professors, even though the overwhelming majority of applications available are in English. However,it may be hypothesized that this is due to the experience shown by computer users in this study, and thelittle educational use of computers. As computers are integrated into the educational process, professorswill probably find the language issue to be of more importance.Representatives of all universities in this study believed that computing was important, butconcrete motivational or support programs in the form of continuing education for professors or staffdevelopment do not exist, except in a few cases with limited scope. Again, there is evidence to suggestthat universities want their professors to become more involved with computing, but only time will tell if134they are willing to back these claims with proper planning and economic support for a comprehensiveeducational computing implementation.Characteristics of Educational Computing in the Dominican RepublicMost of the major characteristics of educational computing in developed countries, according tothe literature, can also be found in Dominican universities. These characteristics are: lack of planning, in-equitable access to computing, inadequate software, need for integrating computers to the curriculum,and need for training. A brief discussion of each one of these follows.Lack of PlanningThe literature shows that poor planning is one of the most obvious problems affecting educa-tional implementations of computing technology (Brine & Johnson, 1990a; Carter, 1990; Gillespie, 1983;Sybouts & Stevens, 1986). In Dominican universities planning for educational computing implementa-tions centers mostly around the kind of computing equipment to be acquired, rather than in theeducational goals that want to be achieved and other important factors involved in these implementa-tions.None of the universities surveyed had any specific authority or department dedicated toeducational computing. Thus, planning that takes into account all aspects of educational computing isnonexistent. However, universities today are beginning to realize this need, and some of them havecommittees or departments in charge of computing for education.Inequitable Access to ComputingInequitable access to computers has been referred to as a cause of widening differences be-tween the rich and the poor (NITET, 1986; O'Neil, 1990). Within the Dominican context, this inequity is135obvious, and universities with lower budgets and larger numbers of students, such as UTESA and O&M, lackthe economic resources to compete technologically with small, elite universities such as UNIBE. Thus,students from these universities are not likely to have the same amount or quality of exposure tocomputing as students from universities with better resources and experience.Inadequate SoftwareThe literature refers to the lack of good educational software when discussing the inadequacy ofsoftware in higher education (Bork, 1984; Gilbert & Green, 1986a; MEET, 1987). In the DominicanRepublic, the case could be titled "no software", rather than just "inadequate". The only educationalsoftware available to Dominican higher education are tutorials for certain applications, hardware, andperhaps some computer science techniques. Other applications of software in education are generallylimited to training sessions in which the use of off-the-shelf applications is taught to students.While educational institutions in developed countries have many potential sources of free orvery inexpensive educational software—through INTERNET, for example—available to them, that is not thecase for Dominican universities, and similar sources are not available at the regional or nationallevel. Even if the universities had access to these sources, then language and cultural issues must beaddressed before educational software can be used effectively. Most universities develop their ownadministrative software, but very few locally developed educational software packages were found.Need for Integrating Computers to the CurriculumFor educational computing programs to be successful, changes must take place in the curriculumto accommodate the use of new technologies where the use of these technologies is deemed to beappropriate or beneficial (Brine and Johnson, 1990a; Sutphin, 1987). In this study, professors from mcwere the only ones who indicated that there was indeed a need for integrating the computer into the136curriculum, perhaps because they are the only ones being encouraged to use computing technologyuniversity-wide.Dominican universities have yet to reach the point where computers are used in subject areasother than computer science, in which integration of the computer is a given. This study could be auseful tool in anticipating problems that can affect the proper development of computing in these otherareas. For example, professors point to the need for guidance on how to use computers as well as totheir lack of knowledge about how to use computers appropriately in the classroom. These and otherproblems are evidence that, as computers begin to be used in non-computer science environments, moreand more curriculum integration and support for professors will be needed.Need for TrainingThe point made about integration of the computer into the curriculum, and the evident need forguidance and training underlined by professors and administrative personnel in this study, raises theissue of training. It appears that training for professors and personnel in Dominican universities islimited, but not only in computing matters. Many professors are not so by profession, and many of themhave had to resort to multiple jobs in order to sustain themselves. Universities are experiencing a lack ofqualified personnel in all areas, so training in computing might not seem a priority to most of them.Training courses in Dominican universities, where available, seem to suffer from the sameproblems that many other computing training programs show. Most courses are taught by computervendors or computer science personnel. The courses are too technical, focus too much on programming,or are only useful for professors to learn basic user skills. None of the programs apparently satisfy pro-fessors' needs or help them learn how to use computers effectively in the three areas of educational com-puting discussed in this study: information, instruction, and productivity.137Uses of Computers in Dominican UniversitiesThe uses of computers in educational institutions can be classified into three major areas:Information, or the use of computers for the management of administrative information, as well asresearch and electronic mail; productivity, when computers are used in combination with off-the-shelfapplication software to enhance the productivity of administrative personnel or professors; and instruc-tion, when computers are used to teach about computers or to help in the teaching of other subjects. Adiscussion of the results of this study regarding the use of computers in these three areas is presented inthis section, followed by a brief summary of the attitudes toward learning about, and working withcomputers on the part of professors.Roles of Computers in Dominican UniversitiesResults of this study show that Dominican universities are well-developed in the use of comput-ers for the management of administrative information, even when compared to universities in developedcountries, but much less developed in other areas of computer use. In the areas of instruction, andproductivity, as well as some aspects of information, they appear less developed.The use of computers for research is limited to data processing and statistical analyses, butaccess to national or international information sources in electronic form, or even electronic access tolibrary catalogues is not available. Recent developments, such as the establishment of the REDID (RedDominicana para la InvestigaciOn y Desarrollo/Dominican Network for Research and Development) mayprovide Dominican universities with access to the INTERNET, in which case computers should prove to bemuch more useful for research purposes.The use of computers in the area of productivity appears to be hindered by economic limitationsthat imposes severe restrictions on the idea of providing individuals with expensive tools such as138computers. However, some use is evident, particularly in executive and secretarial positions throughoutthe universities, and it seems to be only a matter of time before the use of computers as productivity toolsis widespread. Heavy use of computers for instruction is obvious in the computer science area, and someuse is made in engineering, and computer literacy courses university-wide. Computer use is fairlycommon for teaching about computers, while instruction with computers is practically nonexistent.The results of this study indicate that the areas in which the use of computers is most developedare those in which computers are used in ways similar to uses in the business environment. The businesscommunity has had a great impact on the development of computing in the country, and has heavilyinfluenced computer implementations in higher education. The areas of management and technicalcomputer literacy are the most developed areas because these are practices that have been common tothe business community for many years. For example, it is evident that training and computer literacycourses in universities have a business-like approach to computing, and that reflects the way in whichcomputers are used in the business community.Professors Attitudes toward ComputersThe attitudes of Dominican professors and administrative personnel are generally highlypositive. Even though universities face many problems that limit their development in educational com-puting, university officials are very much in favor of change toward more widespread use of computers,and seem to regard computers as very important tools for the development of any individual in societytoday. The results of the attitude scale indicate that professors who use computers, as well as those whodo not use them, hold high regard for these tools and related technologies, even with the limited ex-posure they have had to them.This positive attitude is encouraging, but might also be misleading. Computer users in this studyseem to have had enough experience with computers so that factors such as computer anxiety or first-139time-user frustrations do not exist anymore, and so their attitude scores are high. Also, non-users showso little exposure to information about computers, that their reactions might be more positive than theywould be if they had more knowledge about them. Furthermore, it was shown that computer coursesgiven to professors (both users and non-users) put a lot of emphasis o n topics such as the importance ofcomputing and impact of the applications of the computer, topics which may make computing soundmuch easier to implement than it really is. Whatever the case, it would seem appropriate to be encour-aged, but cautious, about professors' attitudes toward computers in Dominican universities.RecommendationsFor educational computing implementations in higher education to be successful, developmentin three areas—physical, human, and logical—is of major importance. In Dominican universities, de-velopment is restricted by factors that are in many cases beyond the universities' immediate control. Re-stricting factors include the poor economic situation, problems with the electrical infrastructure of thecountry, and unfavorable import restrictions on computing technology, among others. Despite thesenegative factors, and some evident progress, the results of this study show that there is a lot of room forimprovement in these three areas in current educational computing implementations.Based on these results, and on the constraints that have been identified, three general improve-ments are proposed. First, Dominican universities must develop their own local educational computingpolicies which take into account the different aspects of educational computing reviewed in this study inorder to make the most of the physical and human resources available to them. Second, Dominicanuniversities must understand and address the current issues of availability and quality of human resourcesfor educational computing that have been underlined throughout this study. Third, new technologiesmust be introduced, and the use of available technologies must be optimized.140Development of Local Educational Computing PoliciesDominican universities must realize that educational computing encompasses more than the useof computers for administration and computer science. Comprehensive planning and policies for theapplication of computers in the areas of information, instruction, and productivity should be established.These policies, particularly those which refer to the acquisition, local development, and use of softwarein the area of instruction, should take into careful consideration the technology transfer issues outlined inthe literature. Also, economic limitations sometimes allow the business community to influence the com-puting culture of these universities. Universities must cease to be trend followers, and become trend set-ters in the applications of computing technology in a culturally-appropriate manner.Improving Availability and Quality of Human ResourcesThese changes cannot take place within the current organizational environments withoutsignificantly enhancing the human element of educational computing. Specialists are needed to guideDominican universities through appropriate planning and implementation of educational computing.Although it is not likely that these specialists can be found in the Dominican Republic, it is not un-reasonable to assume that universities can import this kind of expertise, preferably by providing localprospects with training abroad, until the country can produce its own specialists. If this is to be done,careful attention to technology transfer issues is warranted, however.Training of administrative personnel and teaching staff is mandatory. Dominican universitiesmust understand that the most important element in educational computing is that of the human re-sources. This study shows that while administrative personnel receive a certain amount of training, uni-versities seem not to understand the importance of providing professors with appropriate knowledgeabout computing, or about how to integrate computing into the educational setting, not only for thedelivery of instruction, but for class management, research, and communication.141Establishing appropriate training programs is perhaps the most inexpensive of the propositionsmade here, and can be done with available computing resources. One important recommendation is thatuniversities shift the focus of the training courses from their highly technical contents, to an emphasis oninstructional and pedagogical aspects of computing.Optimization of Available Physical ResourcesThe continuous enhancement of the available physical infrastructure is a logical step required tokeep pace with new computing developments. However, this is a very expensive proposition, con-sidering the economic constraints of Dominican universities. Until import restrictions are eased and theDominican government understands the importance of computing for the development of the country,solutions of this kind will be very difficult to implement.For Dominican universities, then, it is more important to optimize the use of currently availabletechnologies by exploiting the capabilities of these technologies to their maximum. Hardware technologyappears to be underutilized in many areas, such as, for example, communications (electronic mail, re-search, and so on). At the same time, universities should keep improving their computing infrastructurewith the introduction of new technologies, as far as their economic condition permits.LimitationsThis study has several limitations that need to be considered. First of all, it is both a descriptiveand explanatory case study in which characteristics of educational computing in seven of the almostthirty Dominican universities were examined, and commonalities and differences explained. The factthat only certain Dominican universities participated in this study makes generalizability of the resultsdifficult. However, the purpose of this study is not to make universal claims about educational com-puting in higher education, but rather to provide enough contextual information and descriptive evidence142for readers to make their own generalizations to other higher education settings.The main problem encountered while conducting the study was the inability to include theUniversidad AutOnoma de Santo Domingo/uAsu, the only public university and one of the biggest ones inthe country in terms of student population. The reason for this omission was a general student strike thatclosed down the university for about three months. The importance of this university in terms of studentpopulation is decreasing rapidly, however. Its current population represents about sixteen percent of thetotal student population attending higher education institutions in the country, compared to about fiftypercent in the universities studied.Suggestions for Further StudyEducational computing is a very young field in which very few studies are available in LatinAmerica. The results of this study point to three general areas in which research would be most de-sirable: curriculum development, professors' uses of computers, and the development of computing inelementary and secondary education.In the area of curriculum development, it would be of interest to study different approaches forteaching computer literacy to professors. This study shows that training programs in the DominicanRepublic are very few and highly technical, and that there is a need for context-sensitive courses that aresuitable for the needs of professors. Also, Dominican universities are just starting to establish university-wide computer literacy courses. It would be interesting to look into the development of those courses aswell and ways in which non-computer science students learn computing best.The use of computers by professors in the universities surveyed was analyzed on the basis of thetypes of applications they had available and used. This kind of analysis gives only a general picture ofthe use of computers by professors, since the literature shows that one application can be used forvarious different purposes. It would be of interest to find out how professors are actually using compu-143ters, and determine where the use of computers could be improved or optimized by looking into theiractual needs and potential uses of computers in their specific areas.Finally, this study concentrated on higher education because there is very little computingcarried on in elementary and secondary schools in the Dominican Republic. However, development inthese areas has already begun in many Latin American countries and in some private schools in theDominican Republic. Studies similar to this one at those levels of education are necessary to supportappropriate planning and implementation for further development of educational computing.144REFERENCESAECT: Association for Educational Communications and Technology (1977). Educational technology:definition and glossary of terms. Washington: AECT.Agee, Roy (1985). Are we really training computer teachers? T.H.E. Journ4 12(7), 96-99.Alemin, Jose Luis, Dr. (1988). PobkiciOn y educaciOn. Tendencias recientes y urgencias filturas.[Population and education. Recent trends and future urgencies]. Unpublished manuscript, PontificiaUniversidad CatOlica Madre y Maestra, Santiago, Dominican Republic.Alvarez, Jose, Smiley, Steven M., & Rohrmann, Francisco (1985). Informatics and small computers inLatin America. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(4), 259-267.Araujo de Oliveira, Joao Batista (1989). Ja tecnologia puede hacer progresar la educaciOn? [Cantechnology help education progress?]. Carta de Tecnologia Educativa, 5(3), 1-4.Becker, Henry Jay (1983). School uses of microcomputers: Report 1 from a national survey. TheJournal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 3(1), 29-33.Becker, Henry Jay (1982). Roles for microcomputers in the 1980s. NASSP Bulletin, 66(455), 47-52.Becker, Henry Jay, & Sterling, Carleton W. (1987). Equity in school computer use: national data andneglected considerations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(3), 289-311.Blankenship, Lloyd V. (1985). An amateur's view of the information revolution in academe.CAUSE/EFFECT, 8(5), 18-23.Bohlin, Roy M. (1992). Correlates of computer anxiety and confidence: Some personal factors forcollege students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, California, April 20-24, 1992.Bork, Alfred (1984). Computer education today and some possible futures. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(4),239-243.Bowers, C. A. (1988). The cultural dimensions of educational computing: Understanding thenon-neutrality of technology. New York: Teachers' College Press.145Brine, John W., & Johnson, E. Marcia (1990a). The role of needs assessment in educational computing.Perspectives in Education, Fall, 25-26.Brine, John W., & Johnson, E. Marcia (1990b). The cultural context of educational computing.Perspectives in Education, Fall, 23-24.Calfee, R. (1985). Computer literacy and book literacy: Parallels and contrasts. Educational Researcher,14(5) , 8-13.Carcamo S., Maria Teresa, Leon BohOrquez, Guillermo, & Aristizabal, Elvia Cecilia (1988). Plan piloto eninformatica educativa Colegio de Nuestra Senora del Pilar, Bucaramanga. [Pilot plan in educationalcomputing Colegio Nuestra Senora del Pilar, Bucaramanga]. Boletin de Informdtica Educativa,1(1), 49-52.Carter, Donna J. (1990). What have educators learned about computers? ACSD Update, 32(9), 1.Chadwick, Clifton B. (1983). Los actuales desafios para la tecnologia educativa. [Current challenges ofeducational technology]. Revista de Tecnologia Educativa, 8(2), 99-109.Chadwick, Clifton B. (1986). Instructional technology research in Latin America. EducationalCommunication and Technology, 34(4), 247-254.Chan, Lyn (1990, November). Issue: Computers in education: Boon or Bust? ACSD Update, 32(9), 7 .Chaudhry, Farouk I., & Fakhro, Samir Q. (1986). Computer education in Bahrain's secondary schools (Apilot project). Computers in Education, 10(4), 439-443.Clayton, J. S., (1975). La transferencia de tecnologia. [The transfer of technology]. Bogota,Colombia: Universidad PedagOgica Nacional de Colombia.Collier, Henry W., McGowan, Carl B., & Ryan, William T. (1987). Microcomputers: A successful approachto teaching business courses. Computers and Education, 11(2), 143-148.Correa, Carlos Maria (1989). Informatics in Latin America: Promises and realities. Information Technology forDevelopment, 4(1),11-30.Crespo, Sandra (1990). Mathematics achievement in the Dominican Republic: Grade 12.Unpublished master's thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.146DeLoughry, Thomas (1987). Widespread piracy by students frustrates developers of computer software.The Chronicle of Higher Education, 33(48), pp. 1, 31 -32.Dockerill, John (1987). Institutional management of information technology: A centralised approach.International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 11(2), 208-220.Durndell, A., Macleod, H., & Siann, G. (1987). A survey of attitudes to, knowledge about, and experienceof computers. Computers and Education, 11(3), 167-175.Dwyer, Thomas (1980). Some thoughts on computers and greatness in teaching. In R. Taylor (Ed.), TheComputer in the School: Tutor, Tool Tutee (pp. 113-118). New York: Teachers College Press.Egginton, Everett (1983). Educational research in Latin America: A twelve-year perspective.Comparative Education Review, 2X1),1983.Esteniou M., Javier (1987). La transformaciOn cultural del Estado contemporaneo frente a las nuevastecnologias de informaciOn: Analisis del caso mexicano. [The cultural transformation of thecontemporary State against new information technologies]. Revista de Tecnologia Educativa,10(1), 15-31.Farrel, P. (1984). Computer literacy. What does it mean?. Journal of Physical Education andRecreation, 55, 54-55.Fary, B. A. (1984). Computer literacy for staff development. AEDS Journa4 (16), 1-8.Fernandez (1990). Dominican Republic. In N. T. Postlethwaite (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of ComparativeEducation and National Systems ofEducation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Fitzgerald, Dolores (1983). Small college business program focuses on computers in decision making.T.H.E. Journa1,11 (3), 109-115.Fonseca, Clotilde, & Schaffer, Marilyn (1990). Por que LOGO? Una respuesta de Costa Rica. [WhyLOGO? An answer from Costa Rica]. Boletin de Informtitica Educativa, 3(1), 19-30.Fuller, Bruce, & Heyneman, Stephen P. (1989). Third world school quality: Current colapse, futurepotential. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 12-19.Gallegos M., Arnold (1984). Educational technology in Latin America: The cultural dynamics.Educational Technology, 24(3), 38-42.147Galvis P., Alvaro H. (1987). Educational computing technology transfer: Towards a non-magical approach.Computers and Education, 11(3), 197-204.Galvis P., Alvaro H. (1988a). Columna del Director [The Director's column]. Boletin de InformiticaEducativa, 1(1), 7-8.Galvis P., Alvaro H. (1988b). Materiales educativos computarizados [Computerized educational resources][Editorial]. Boletin de Informatica Educativa, 1(2),115 -116.Ganske, L., Hamamoto, P. (1984). Response to a crisis: A developers look at the importance of needsassessment to teacher educators in the design of computer literacy training programs. EducationalComputer Technology Journ4 32(2), 101 -113.Gilbert, Steven W., & Green, Kenneth C. (1986a). New computing in higher education. Change, 18(3),33-50.Gilbert, Steven W., & Green, Kenneth C. (1986b, April 10). Software piracy, its cost and the consequences.The Wall Street Journig 47-49.Gillespie, Robert, (1983). How computers are transforming higher education. New Directions forHigher Education, 11(4), 53-67.GOmez Moreno, Bernardo (1989). La hoja electrOnica en la ensenanza de la Fisica. [The electronicspreadsheet in Physics teaching]. In ler Encuentro Nacional en Tecnologia Educativa [1stNational Meeting on Educational Technology] (pp. 107-115). Bogota, Colombia: InstitutoColombiano para el Fomento de la EducaciOn Superior (ICFES).Gonzalez Fiegehen, Luis E. (1987). La computaciOn de la informaciOn en los sistemas educativos deAmerica Latina y el Caribe. [Information computing in educational systems in Latin America and theCaribbean]. Revista de Tecnologia Educativa, 16(1), 55-61.Graham, Peter, & Karisson, GOran (1987). Information technology in the education process at the RoyalInstitute of Technology. European Journal of Engineering Education, 12(2), 179-188.Haigh, R. W. (1985). Planning for computer literacy. Journal of Higher Education, 56(2), 161-171.Harvey, William B. (1983). Educational technology and third world development. Journal ofEducational Tecnology Systems, 11(3), 265-270.148Hasset, J. (1984). Computers in the classroom. Psychology Today, 22-28.Helms, Susan (1985). The computer as a tool: Basis for a university-wide computer literacy course.T.H.E. Journal, 13(2), 104-106.Hungwe, Kedmon (1989). Culturally appropriate media and technology: A Perspective from Zimbabwe.Tech Trends, 34(1), 22-23.Jackson, W. J., & Clements, D. G., Jones, L. G. (1985). Computer awareness and use at a researchuniversity. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 13(1), 47-56.Jacobs, Judith E. (1985). Let's prepare computer educators —NOT computer science educators. TheComputing Teacher, 13(1), 17 -18.Janssen Reinen, Ingeborg, & Plomp, Tjeerd (1992). Staff development as condition for computerintegration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, California, April 20-24, 1992.Kay, Robin H. (1989). Bringing computer literacy into perspective. Journal of Research on Computingin Education, 22(1), 35 -43.Kling, Rob (1983). Value conflicts in computing developments. Telecommunications Policy, X1), 12-34.Lapointe, Archie E., & Martinez, Michael E. (1988). Aims, equity, and access in computer education. PhiDelta Kappan, 70(1), 59-61.Latapi, Pablo (1990). Some challenges for educational research in Latin America. Prospects, 200), 1990.Lennon, Oscar (1988). Cultural variations, cognitive styles, and education in Latin America. Prospects,2 8(3) , 413-420.Lora, Ricardo (1984). La calidad de la educaci6n en la Reptiblica Domicana: Problemas y soluciones.[The quality of Education in the Dominican Republic: Problems and solutions]. Eme-Eme• EstudiosDominicanos, 12(70), 49-72.Loyd, Brenda H., & Gressard, Clarice (1984a). The effects of sex, age, and computer experience oncomputer attitudes. AEDS Journ4 18(2), 67-77.149Loyd, Brenda H., & Gressard, Clarice (1984b). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitudescales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 501 -505.Loyd, Brenda H., & Loyd, Douglas E. (1985). The reliability and validity of an instrument for theassessment of computer attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(4), 903-908.Luna, Eduardo, Gonzalez, Sarah (1984). Estudio comparativo del rendimiento en Matematica en laRepUblica Dominicana. [Comparative study of Mathematics achievement in the DominicanRepublic]. Eme-Eme: Estudios Dominicanos, 12(70), 3-47.Magendzo Kolstrein, Abraham (1987). Curriculum y computaciOn: Una relaciOn a investigar. [Curriculumand computing: A relation to be examined]. Revista de Tecnologia Educativa, 16(1), 43-54.Maritio Drews, Olga (1988). Informatica educativa: Tendencias y vision prospectiva. [Educational Computing:Trends and prospective vision]. Boletin de Informdtica Educativa, 1(1), 11 -32.Marshall, D. G. (1984). Computer technology in third world education. Computer Education, 84), 377-381.Meddenburger, J. (1990, November). Issue: Computers in education: Boon or Bust? ACSD Update, 32(9), 7.Mejia, Radhames (1988, November). Marco histOrico de la evoluciOn de la educaciOn superior en laRepublica Dominicana. [Historical account of the evolution of higher education in the DominicanRepublic]. Simposio Permanente Sobre la Universidad [Permanent Symposium onUniversities]. Asociaci6n Dominicana de Rectores de Universidades (ADRU), Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic.Moont, S. (1987). Computer literacy: An archeological view. ECCO Output, 2 2), 14-17.Mudd, Samuel, & Wilson, William (1987). Achieving curriculum-integrated computing. Computers andeducation, 11(1), 63 -69.NACUBO: National Association of College and Universities Business Officers (1986). Small Collegesoftware survey. Nacubo Business Officer 19(9), 27-31.Naiman, A. (1987, February). A hard look at educational software. Byte, pp. 193-200.Nelson, L. R. (1974). Guide to LERTAP• Use and interpretation. Dunedin, New Zealand: Universityof Otago.150NTFET: The National Task Force on Educational Technology (1986). Transforming american education:Reducing the risk to the nation. T.H.E. Journal 14(1), 58-67.O'Neil, John (1990). Computer "revolution" on hold. ACSD Update, 3Z9), 1.Oeffinger, John C. (1987). Merging Computers and Communication: A Case Study in Latin America.Telematics and Informatics, 4(3), 195-210.Palmer, Janet (1986). Computer education in Ecuador: Preparing for a competitive future. T.H.E.Journal, 13(5), 103-104.Papert, Seymour (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: BasicBooks.Papert, Seymour (1987). Nuevas teorias para aprendizajes nuevos. [New theories for new learning].Revista Desarrollo, 5, 13-22.Pelgnim, Willem J., & Plomp, Tjeerd (1991). The Use of Computers Worldwide. New York: IEA,Pergamon Press.Pickert, S., & Hunter, B. (1983). Redefining literacy. Momentum, 14(3), 7-9.Pimienta, Daniel (1991, December). Proyecto REDALC: Red de America Latina y el Caribe.(REDALC Project: Latin American and Caribbean Network]. Paper presented at the REDALCdevelopment seminar of UniOn Latina, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Ploch, M. (1984). Micros flood campuses. High Technology, 4(3), 47-49.Pograw, Stanley (1990, November). Issue: Computers in education: Boon or Bust? ACSD Update, 3209), 7.Railsback, C. E. (1983). Microcomputers: Solutions in Search of Problems. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(2),118-120.Rojas Cortês, Carlos A. (1988). Uso de los computadores en las escuelas rurales de NemocOn. [Use ofcomputers in the rural schools of NemocOn]. Boletin de Informatica Educativa, 1(1), 45-47.Rueda Fajardo, Francisco (1988). InvestigaciOn sobre informatica educativa: Experiencias del grupo deinformitica educativa UNIANDES. [Research on educational computing: Experiences of theUNIANDES educational computing group]. Boletin de Informatica Educativa, 1(1), 59-63.151Rundall, R. A. (1985). A child's problem: Which computer? Clearing House, 59(4),174-175.Scheffler, I. (1986). Computers at school?. Teachers College Record, 87(4), 513-528.Schiefelbein, Ernesto (1978). Educational reseach networks in Latin America. International Review ofEducation, 24(4), 483-500.Schultz, Karen A., & Hart, Lynn C. (1983). Computers in education. Arithmetic Teacher, 31(4), 36-37.SEEBAC: Secretarta de Estado de Educackin, Bellas Artes y Cultos (1984). DiagnOstico del SectorEducativo (Sumario). [Diagnostic of the educational sector (Summary)]. Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic: SEEBAC.Shor, Richard (1988). The Educational importance of local area networks in secondary schools.Computers and Education, 13(2), 129-134.Soto Bello, DinApoles (1984). El reto de la investigaciOn cientifica en Republica Dominicana. [Thechallenge of scientific research in the Dominican Republic]. Eme-Eme: Estudios Dominicanos,12(70), 73 -81.Stevens, Dorothy Jo (1984). Microcomputers: An educational challenge. Computers and Education, 8(2), 263-267.Sutphin, Dean (1987). Educating teachers on instructional applications of microcomputers. T.H.E.Journal, 14(6), 54-58.Sybouts, Ward, & Stevens, Dorothy Jo (1986). A system model to introduce computers into aneducational program. NASSP Bulletin, 70(489), 28-31.Taylor, Robert (Ed.) (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool or tutee. New York, London:Teachers' College Press.Troxell Sellew, Kathleen (1987). Dominican Republic: A Study of the Educational System and aGuide to Academic Placement of Students in Educationl Institutions of the UnitedStates. Washington, D.C.: IEAG/AACRAO.Tucker, M. S. (1983). The turning point: Telecommunications and higher education. The Journal ofCommunication, 33(1), 118-130.152Vermette, Sandra M., Orr, R. Robert, & Hall, Michael H. (1986). Attitudes of elementary school studentsand teachers toward computers in education. Educational Technology, 26(1), 41-47.Weston, Cynthia B. (1988). Critical factors for educational technology interventions in developingcountries. ETTI, 26(2), 122-128.Woodrow, Janice E. (1987). Educators' attitudes and predispositions towards computers. Journal ofComputers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 6(3), 27-37.Yin, Robert K. (1988). Case study research: Design and methods. California: SAGE Publications.Zapata, Amarilis (1988, November). El sistema educativo Dominicano. Algunos problemas indicadoresde la situaciOn actual. [The Dominican educational system. Some problems indicative of the currentsituation]. Simposio Permanente Sobre la Universidad [Permanent Symposium onUniversities]. AsociaciOn Dominicana de Rectores de Universidades (ADRU), Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic.Zemke, R. (1984). The Slippery Menace of Computerphobia. Training, 21(6), 34-42.153APPENDIX AProfessor Questionnaire(Original)154LA COMPUTACION EN EDUCACION SUPERIOREN LA REPUBLICA DOMINICANAUn estudio auspiciado por The University of British ColumbiaING. THOMAS C. GARCIA S.COMPUTING INHIGHER EDUCATION IN THEDOMINICAN REPUBLICCuestionario de Profesores155THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAFaculty of EducationDepartment of Mathematics andScience Education2125 Main MallVancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z5Tel: (604) 228-5422 Fax: (604) 228-4714Estimado profesor:Gracias por acceder a participar en este estudio nacional acerca del uso de los computadores en lasuniversidades dominicanas. Mucho se ha dicho del beneficio del uso de los computadores en todas las areas,tanto administrativas como educativas en las universidades, pero pars poder sacarle el verdadero provecho alos mismos, debemos aprender atin mis de como estan siendo utilizados y como deben utilizarse.Este proyecto realizado en diversas universidades del pats representa el primer estudio formal acerca del uso delos computadores en las universidades dominicanas; esta siendo desarrollado por un servidor bajo lasupervision del Departamento de EducaciOn en Ciencias y Matematica de la Universidad de ColumbiaBritinica (UBC), en Vancouver, Canada. La idea del mismo surgi6 originalmente de un estudio que estaIlevando a cabo la IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement) eninstituciones educativas alrededor del mundo.Entendemos que esta recolecciOn de datos exige mucho tiempo de su parte, pero esta es la Unica forma deobtener datos titiles acerca del uso de los computadores en nuestras universidades.Gracias por su colaboraciOn,Thomas C. GarciaCoordinador proyectoFacultad de EducaciOnUniversidad de Columbia Britanica(809) 582 1024156INTRODUCCION Y PROPOSITOIntroducci6n El presente estudio acerca del use de los computadores en las universidadesdominicanas es de caracter nacional. El mismo esti siendo conducido bajo lasupervision de un equipo de asesores del Departamento de EducaciOn enCiencias y Matemitica de la Universidad de Columbia Britinica. Es unproyecto de investigaciOn mas auspiciado por dicha universidad, la cual tieneotros proyectos manejados desde el Centro de Investigaciones de la UniversidadCatMica Madre y Maestra. Mis que esto, representa un esfuerzo por mejorar elestado general de la computaci6n en la educaciOn superior en la ReptiblicaDominican a.El cuestionario^En este cuestionario se solicita information acerca de su experiencia personal enasuntos relacionados con computadores. Debe tomarle unos 20 minutos elcompletarlo.Necesitamos su ayuda Esperamos que usted tome el tiempo necesario para contestar las siguientespreguntas tan cuidadosa y correctamente como sea posible. La calidad de losresultados de este estudio depende de la exactitud y de que tan completa sea lainformation que cada profesor ofrezca.COmo contestar^Si usted no tiene la informaci6n necesaria para contestar alguna pregunta enparticular, por favor, consulte otras personas en el departamento que puedanayudarle a contestarla.Lapicero^ Por favor, utilice un lapicero para marcar sus respuestas.Tipografia Sugerencias de cOmo contestar las preguntas aparecen en cursiva.Si la respuesta '^ ' aparece, usted debe escribir su propiarespuesta. Por favor escriba en letras de molde o en letra bien legible.La mayoria de las preguntas pueden ser contestadas marcando el cuadritocorrespondiente o encerrando la respuesta correcta en un circulo.Cuando una pregunta lee:Por favor, marque todas las que apliquenusted puede marcar mis de una respuesta.Confidencial Toda information recabada en este estudio es confidential. En ningimmomento o bajo ninguna circunstancia serf identificado el departamento o elindividuo que Bend el cuestionario. En caso de alguna duda respecto a algunapregunta o al estudio en si, sientase libre de llamarnos al 582-1024 o deenviarnos un fax al 582-1001, en Santiago. Cuestionario de Pmfesores^ 2157I. iUsa usted computadores?1:] Si^ NoSI NO USA USTED COMPUTADORES,POR FAVOR PASE A LA SECCION B, PAG 7SECCIONIAI":"PREGUNTASTARA:LOSQUEUSANCOMPUTADORES:1.:M]::::' . :..—2. iPor cuantos afios ha usado usted computadores?^ Este es mi primer alio^ 1-3 afios111 4 afios o mas3. iCuando y dOnde utiliz6 usted un computador por primera vez?^ Nunca he utilizado un computadorUse un computador por primera vez en 19^:111 En la universidad o durante una sesi6n de entrenamiento^ En la universidad (como profesor)^ En casa^ En otro lugar (por favor, especifique)^4. tQue tipo de entrenamiento ha recibido usted en el use de computadores?Por favor, marque sodas las que apliquen^ Entrenamiento basico como estudiante en la universidad.^ Entrenamiento de profesores dado por la universidad u alguna otra institution educativa.11] Curso tecnico fuera de la universidad.111 Nunca he recibido entrenamiento.111 Otro (por favor, especifique)^5. iCOmo se mantiene usted al tanto de la tecnologia de la computaciOn?^ A tray& de revistas de computadores.^ InformaciOn recibida de la universidad.^ Amigos o colegas.11] No tengo tiempo para mantenerme al dia.^ Otro (por favor, especifique)^ Cuestionario de Profesores 31586. iExisten computadores disponibles para su uso?^ En la universidad.^ En casa.^ Ambos.7. iCuales aplicaciones (programas) usa usted, con que frecuencia y para que fines?Por favor, para calla aplicaciOn, senate la frecuencia y el tipo de uso, encerrando en un cIrculorespuesta correspondiente.APLICACION FRECUENCIA DE USO TIPO DE USOEnsefianza y practica Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosProcesamiento Palabras Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosDibujo/Artes GrIficas Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosM6sica Nunca Rata vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosSim ulaci6n Nunca Ram vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosJ uegos Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosProgramaci6n BASIC Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosProgramaciOn LOGO Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosOtros Lenguajes Nunca Ram vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosHojas de calculo Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosCaicos Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosEstadfstica Nunca Ram vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosBases de Datos Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosLab. Electr6nica Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ AmbosCAD (Arq./Ing.) Nunca Rara vez A veces A menudo Siempre Pers Educ Ambos8. iQue tan adecuados diria usted que son los recursos siguientes en su universidad?Por favor, para wok, recurso, senate que tan adecuado considera usted que el mismo es, encerrando enun clrculo la respuesta correspondiente.RECURSONtimero de computadores Muy adecuado Adecuado Inadecuado Muy inadecuadoElectricidad Muy adecuado Adecuado Inadecuado Muy inadecuadoDisponibilidad computadores Muy adecuado Adecuado Inadecuado Muy inadecuadoUbicacián computadores Muy adecuado Adecuado Inadecuado Muy inadecuadoDisponibilidad personal tecnico Muy adecuado Adecuado Inadecuado Muy inadecuadoExperiencia personal tecnico Muy adecuado Adecuado Inadecuado Muy inadecuadoInfo. general de computadores Muy adecuado Adecuado Inadecuado Muy inadecuado Cuestionario de Profesores 41599. Conteste SI o NO a las preguntas siguientes.Conozco varios usos de los computadores.^ SI^NOConozco algunas ventajas de usar computadores en education.^SI^NOConozco diferentes criterios en base a los cuales juzgar la calidad de un impresor. SI^NOConozco lo que es un MODEM.^ SI NOConozco diferentes tipos de computadores: ms-Dos , Apple H, Macintosh, UNIX.^SI^NOSe c6mo escribir un programa simple para un computador.^ SI^NOSe c6mo intercambiar datos entre dos tipos diferentes de computadores.^SI^NOSe c6mo copiar un archivo de un disco a otro disco. SI^NOSe c6mo editar un documento en un procesador de palabras.^SI^NOSC c6mo crear un archivo de datos en un computador. SI^NO10. Ct.t6.1 de los siguientes problemas experimenta usted al usar computadores en la universidad?Por favor, marque todas Las que apliquenPROBLEMAS DE EQUIPO^ El mimero de computadores no es suficiente.^ El ntimero de perifericos (impresores, discos, etc.) no es suficiente.^ El mantenimiento de los equipos en operaciOn es deficiente.^ Limitaciones de los equipos actuales (obsoletos, lentos, mala calidad, memoria insuficiente).^ El servicio de electricidad es deficiente.PROBLEMAS CON LAS APLICACIONES (PROGRAMAS)ri No hay suficientes aplicaciones (programas) para use del ptiblico.^ Las aplicaciones (programas) son muy diffciles de utilizar.^ Los manuales y materiales de soporte estan incompletos o no existen.^ No hay information acerca de las diferentes aplicaciones o su calidad.^ Las aplicaciones (programas) estan en inglCs y no hay versiones disponibles en espafiol.PROBLEMAS CON EL USO DE LOS COMPUTADORES PARA LA CLASE^ No hay suficiente ayuda para supervisar los estudiantes que usan computadores.^ Hay problemas tratando de integrar el computador al curriculum.n Los profesores carecen del conocimiento necesario para utilizar computadores en education.^ No hay suficiente gufa/experiencia para ayudar a los profesores a usar los computadores. Cuestionario de Profesores 516010. (cont.)PROBLEMAS DE ORGANIZACION/ADMINISTRACION^ No hay suficiente tiempo para que profesores o estudiantes aprendan de computadores.^ No hay suficiente asistencia t&nica para operar o dar mantenimiento al equipo.^ Los computadores no estan suficientemente accesibles para los profesore.^ No hay suficiente oportunidad de entrenamiento para los profesores.^ No hay soporte administrativo suficiente.^ No hay soporte financiero suficiente.MISCELANEOS^ No hay inters por parte de los profesores.^ No hay inters por parte de los estudiantes.^ Otro (por favor, especifique) ^11. iCuantas de las aplicaciones (programas) que usted utiliza estan en espanol?^ Ninguna.^ Menos de un 10%^ 10%-49%^ 50%-90%^ Mas de un 90%^ Todas Cuestionario de profesores 6161SECCION8:: .PREGUNTASTAIRA.LOS:::QUENO'USAN - COMPUTADORMI:::0"SI USA USTED COMPUTADORES,POR FAVOR PASE A LA SECCION C, EN ESTA MISMA PAGINA12. A continuaciOn de listan un mimero de razones para no usar computadores.Cuiles de estas razones se aplican a usted?Por favor, marque todas fru que apliquen111 No tengo tiempo para aprender de computadores.^ No tengo inters en aprender a utilizar computadores.^ No se ofrecen las facilidades necesarias para aprender a utilizar computadores.^ Los computadores son muy clinches de utilizar.^ No tengo necesidad de usar computadores en mi trabajo.^ Para usar computadores necesariamente hay que saber ingles.^ El ntimero de computadores no es suficiente.^ El servicio de electricidad es deficiente.^ No hay suficiente gufa/experiencia para ayudar a los profesores a usar los computadores.111 Los computadores no estan suficientemente accesibles para los profesore.^ No hay suficiente oportunidad de entrenamiento para los profesores.^ No hay soporte administrativo suficiente.^ No hay soporte financiero suficiente.^ Otra (por favor, especifique) ^. '"SECCIONCi::::::PREGUNTAS::PARATODOS.LO&PROFE$ORES.:: ..................................13. A continuaciOn se le presenta una serie de afirmaciones. No hay respuestas correctas a estasafirmaciones. Estan disenadas para permitirle indicar que tan de acuerdo esti usted con ellas.Para cada afirmaciOn, marque con una 'x" el cuadrito que corresponds.Muy de^De^En^Muy enacuerdo acuerdo desacuerdodesacuerdoa. Me gustarfa trabajar con computadores.b. No creo que podrfa hacer trabajos muysofisticados en el computador.c. Creo que trabajar con computadoresserfa estimulante y agradable. ^ 111^^ 111 Cuestionario de Profesores 716213. (cont.).Muy de^De^En^Muy enacuerdo acuerdo desacuerdodesacuerdod. Aprender acerca de computadoreses importantee. Estoy seguro de poder trabajarcon computadoresf. No me molestarfa tener que tomarcursos de computaciOn.g. Creo que tengo pocos usos para uncomputador en mi vida diaria.h. Los computadores me hacensentir inc6modok. Creo que usar computadoresserfa muy dificil para mi.1. Me sentirfa c6modo usandoun computador^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^i. No entiendo cOmo algunas personaspueden pasar tanto tiempo trabajandocon computadores y parecer que lo disfrutan.i- No puedo imaginar ninguna maneraen la cual yo utilizarfa computadores enmi carrera14. iQuê ventajas ve usted en usar computadores en la universidad?Por favor, marque todas Lis que apliquen^ El trabajo se hace mucho mas rapido.^ Se mejora la comunicaci6n.n Se mejora la calidad de la educaci6n.^ Otra (por favor, especifIque)^^ No veo ninguna ventaja en usar computadores en la universidad. Cuestionario de Profesores 816315. iQue desventajas ve usted en usar computadores en la universidad?Por favor, marque todas las que apliquen^ No se le saca provecho a los equipos porque son muy dificiles de utilizar.^ El dinero utilizado para comprar computadores puede ser usado para mejores fines.^ Otra (por favor, especifIque)^^ No veo ninguna desventaja en usar computadores en la universidad.16. Ha participado usted en algun curso de capacitaciOn en computaciOn ofrecido por UNIBE?^ No se ha ofrecudo ningUn curso de capacitaci6n en computaciOn.^ Se han ofrecido cursos, pero no he participado en ninguno.^ Si he participado en uno o varios cursos de capacitaci6n en computaciOn.17. i,Acerca de cuiles de los siguientes tOpicos aprendi6 usted en entrenamientos para profesorestanto fuera como dentro de la universidad?COMPUTADORAS Y LA SOCIEDAD^ historia/evoluci6n^ importancia de la computadora (personal, industrial, en educaci6n)^ impacto de las aplicaciones de la computadora^ temas 6ticos (privacidad, derechos de autor, etc.)APLICACIONES^ ediciOn/procesamiento de palabras/autoediciOn^ dibujo/arte/ilustraciOn^ hojas de calculo electr6nicas^ manejo de base de datos^ aplicaciones de estadistica^ inteligencia artificial/sistemas expertos^ lenguages de enseilanza^ modelaci6n y simulaciOn^ instrumentaci6n de laboratorios Cuestionario de Profesores 916417. (cont.)^ digitalizaciOn/procesamiento de imagenes^ CAD/CAM/control de procesos/rob6tica^ telecomunicaci6n (correo electremico)/redes de computadoras^ juegos educativos/recreativos^ generaci6n de mtisicaANALISIS DE PROBLEMAS Y PROGRA/vIACION^ conceptos generates (archivos, variables, arreglos, ciclos)^ procedimientos generates de programaci6n^ estructura de programas^ lenguages de programaciOn^ analisis de problemas (algoritmos, etc.)PRINCIPIOS DE ESTRUCTURA DE HARDWARE Y SOFTWARE^ conceptos basicos acerca de las computadoras y los sistemas de computation^ equipos (arquitectura de computadoras, CPU, control de flujo de datos)^ aplicaciones (arquitectura de software, software de sistema)ASPECTOS INSTRUCCIONALES/PEDAGOGICOS^ aplicaciOn de programas de ensefianza, prktica y supervisiOn^ cOmo buscar evaluaciones de programas educativos^ como evaluar programas educativos^ integraci6n de los programas en clases existentes^ organizaci6n del use de las computadoras durante las lecciones^ Otro (por favor, especifique)^NINGUNO DE LOS ANTERIORES18. Con relation a los resultados de estos cursos de capacitation, icual seria su opiniOn, tomandoen cuenta todos los aspectos pedagOcios y tecnicos de los mismos?^ Excelente^ Bueno^ Regular^ DeficienteMediocre Cuestionario de Profesores 10165SECCION .Ei::::ANTECEDENTESIPERSONALESI.'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:ii.::::::M:::i:i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::119. Indique el grado academia) Inas alto que usted ha obtenido.^ Universitario - parcial^ Universitario - completo^ Universitario - maestrfa^ Universitario - doctorado^ Otro (por favor, especifique)20. iCuantos afios de experiencia en educaciOn tiene usted?MOS de experiencia en educaciOn:21. iEn que afio naci6 usted?1922. iCuil es su sexo?^ Masculino^ Femenino23. Si desea hacer algtin comentario adicional sobre cualquier aspect() de los computadores, tantopersonal como para educaci6n, por favor utilice las Ifneas siguientes. Cuestionario de Profesores 11166APPENDIX BProfessor Questionnaire(Translated)167COMPUTING IN HIGHER EDUCATIONIN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLICA Study Sponsored by The University of British ColumbiaTHOMAS C. GARCIA S.COMPUTING INHIGHER EDUCATION IN THEDOMINICAN REPUBLICProfessor Questionnaire168THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAFaculty of EducationDepartment of Mathematics andScience Education2125 Main MallVancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z5Tel: (604) 228-5422 Fax: (604) 228-4714Dear professor:Thanks for participating in this national study about the use of computers in Dominican universities. A lothas been said about the benefits of using computers in all educational areas, both administrative, andacademic. However, to be able to take full advantage of these benefits, we must first learn more about howare computers being used today, and how they should be used.This project, in which several universities are participating, represents the first formal study about the use ofcomputers in Dominican universities; it is being carried out by myself under supervision of the Departmentof Mathematics and Science Education of The University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada. Theidea behind the project originally came from a study conducted by the IEA (International Association for theEvaluation of Educational Achievement) in educational institutions around the world.We understand that this data collection process requires some of your time, but it is the only way to obtainuseful information about the use of computers in our universities.Thanks for your cooperation,Thomas C. GarciaProject CoordinatorFaculty of EducationThe University of British Columbia169INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDYIntroduction This project is a national study about the use of computers in Dominicanuniversities. It represents an effort to improve the level of educationalcomputing in higher education in the country. It is being carried out under thesupervision of an advisory committee of the Department of Mathematics andScience Education of the University of British Columbia, which also supportsother projects through the Research Centre of the Pontificia UniversidadCatOlica Madre y Maestra in Santiago.The questionnaire^In this questionnaire we ask you for information about your personal experiencewith computing matters. It should take you about 20 minutes to complete.We need your help We hope you will take the time necessary to complete the following questions ascarefully and correctly as possible. The quality of the results of this studydepends on how precise and complete is the information provided by eachprofessor.How to answer^If you do not have the necessary information to answer a particular question,please consult other persons in your department who might be able to help youanswer them.Use a pen^Please, use a pen to answer the questionnaire.Typography^Suggestions on how to answer most questions appear in italics.If the answer '^ ' appears, you should write down yourown answer. Please print or write clearly.Most of the questions can be answered by checking the corresponding box orcircling the correct answer.When a question reads:Please, mark all that apply.you can select more than one answer.Confidential All data gathered in this study is confidential. Under no circumstances will anindividual or his/her department be identified for any purpose. In case youhave any doubts or questions about any particular question or about this study,feel free to call me at (809) 582-1024, or send a fax to (809) 582-1001, inSantiago. Cuestionario de Profesores^ 21701. Do you use computers?^ Yes^ NoIF YOU DO NOT USE COMPUTERS,PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION B, PAGE 7SECTION -Ai:: .:4)1J.ESTIONSVOLPROFESSORS:::WH: USECOMPUTERSM:::::::2. For how many years have you used compute&^ This is my first year^ 1-3 years^ 4 years or more3. When and where did you use computers for the first time?^ I have never used a computerI used a computer for the first time in 19^ At the university or in a training session.^ At the university (as a professor).^ At home.^ Somewhere else (please, specifY)^4. What kind of training have you received in the use of computers?Please, mark all that apply.^ Basic training in the university as a student.^ Basic training taken as a professor at the university or any other educational institution.^ Technical training taken outside the university.^ I have never received training.^ Other (please, spec6)^5. How do you keep up-to-date in computing technology?^ Through computer magazines.^ Information received from the university.^ Though friends or coleagues.^ I don't have time to keep up-to-date.^ Other (please, specij5)^ Cuestionario de Profesores 31716. Are there computers available for you to use?Eli At the university.^ At home.111 At both places.7. Which applications (programs) do you use, how often, and for what purpose?For each application, please indicate the frequency and type of use, by circling the appropriate answerin each case.APPLICATION FREQUENCY OF USE TYPE OF USEDrill and practice Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothWord processing Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothDrawing/Graphic Arts Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothMusic Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothSimulations Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothGames Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothBASIC programming Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothLOGO programming Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothOther languages_ Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothSpreadsheets Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothGraphics Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothStatistics Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothDatabases Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothData Acquisition Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ BothCAD (Arch./Eng.) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Pers Educ Both8. How adequate would you say these resources are in your university?For each resource, please indicate how adequate you think it s, by circling the appropriate answer ineach case.RESOURCENumber of computers Very adequate Adequate Inadequate Very inadequateEnergy supply Very adequate Adequate Inadequate Very inadequateAvailability of computers Very adequate Adequate Inadequate Very inadequateLocation of computers Very adequate Adequate Inadequate Very inadequateAvailability of technical personnel Very adequate Adequate Inadequate Very inadequateExperience of technical personnel Very adequate Adequate Inadequate Very inadequateGeneral information on computers Very adequate Adequate Inadequate Very inadequate Cuestionario de Profesores 41729. Please answer YES or NO to the following statements.I know several uses of computers.^ YES NOI know some advantages of using computers in education.^YES NOI know several criteria to judge printers. YES NOI know what a MODEM 15.^ YES NOI know different kinds of computers: MS-DOS, Apple II, Macintosh, UNIX.^YES NOI know how to write a simple program for a computer.^ YES NOI know how to exchange data among different kinds of computers.^YES NOI know how to copy a file from one disk to another disk. YES NOI know how to edit a document with a word processor.^ YES NOI know how to create a data file in a computer.^ YES NO10. Which of the following problems do you experience when using computers at the university?Please, mark all that apply.HARDWARE PROBLEMS^ The number of computers is insufficient.n The number of peripherals (printers, hard disks, etc.) is insufficient.^ Maintenance of available equipment is deficient.^ Limitations of current equipment (obsolete, slow, low quality, insufficient memory).^ The supply of energy (electricity) is inadequate.SOFTWARE PROBLEMSr7 There are not enough applications (programs) available for public use.^ The available applications are very difficult to use.^ The manuals and support materials are incomplete or inexistent.^ There is no information available about the different applications or their quality.^ The applications are in English, and there are no Spanish versions available.PROBLEMS WITH THE USE OF COMPUTERS FOR THE CLASSROOM^ There is not enough help to supervise students who use computers.^ There are problems when trying to integrate the computer to the curriculum.^ Professors lack the necessary knowledge to use computers for educational purposes.n There is insufficient guidance/experience to help professors use computers. Cuestionario de Profesorer 517310. (cont.)ORGANIZATIONAL/ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS^ There is insufficient time available for the professors or students to learn about computers.^ There is insufficient technical assistance to operate or give maintenance to the equipment.^ Computers are not accesible enough for professors.^ There is not enough training opportunity for professors.^ There is not enough administrative support.n There is not enough financial support.MISCELLANEOUSr, There is not enough interest on the part of professors.ri There is not enough interest on the part of students.n Other (please, specifj ^11. What percentage of the applications you use are actually in Spanish?^ None.I:=1 Less than 10%^ 10%-49%^ 50%-90%^ More than 90%El All. Cuestionario de Profesores 6174SECTION::E;::.-QUESTIONS -FOR.PROFESSORS:WHO:DO:NOT:USECOMPUTER&lIF YOU USE COMPUTERS,PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION C, THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE12. The following is a list of reasons why not to use computers.Which of these apply to you?Please, mark all that apply.^ I do not have time to learn about computers.^ I am not interested in learning how to use computers.^ The support needed to learn how to use computers is nonexistent.^ Computers are very difficult to use.^ I do not have the need to use computers in my job.^ You must know English to be able to use computers.^ The number of computers is insufficient.^ The energy supply is deficient.^ There is insufficient guidance/experience to help professors use computers.^ Computers are not accesible enough for professors.^ There is not enough training opportunity for professors.^ There is not enough administrative support.^ There is not enough financial support.^ Other (please, specij5)'' .. :SECTION : QUESTIONSTORAWPROFESSOR&.':::::':::::::::::::::::::::.:.:::' ,.'.':':: . .13. The following is a list of statements designed for you to indicate whether you agree or notwith each one of them. There are no correct or incorrect answers to these statements.For each statement, please mark with an 'X" the appropriate box.Strongly^ Stronglyagree^Agree^Disagree^disagreea. I would like working with computers.b. I do not think I could do advancedcomputer work.c.^I think that working with computerswould be enjoyable and stimulating . Cuestionario de Profesores 717513. (cont.)Strongly^ Stronglyagree^Agree^Disagree^disagreed. Learning about computers isworthwhile.e. I am sure I could do work withcomputers.f. It wouldn't bother me at all to takecomputer courses.g. I expect to have little use forcomputers in my daily life.h. Computers make me feeluncomfortable.i. I don't understand how some peoplecan spend so much time working withcomputers and seem to enjoy it.j. I can't think of any way that I willuse computers in my career.k. I think that using computerswould be very hard for me.1. I would feel comfortable workingwith a computer.^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^14. What advantages do you see in using computers at the university?Please, mark all that apply.^ Work gets done much faster.^ It improves communication.ri It improves the quality of education.^ Other(please, specify)^r7 I do not see any advantages of using computers at the university. Cuestionario de Profrsores 817615. What disadvantages do you see in using computers at the university?Please, mark all that apply.^ No advantage is taken of the equipment, because it is too difficult to use.^ The money used for buying computers could be used for better purposes.^ Other (please, specifj)^r7 I do not see any disadvantages of using computers at the university.• - • -'5ggrioNt:0;:g.:ApornoNAvgvgsrpNkiir .---16. Have you participated in any training course on computing offered by your university?^ No training course has been offered to professors.^ Some courses have been offered, but I have not participated in any of them.^ Yes, I have participated in one or more training courses on computing.17. Which of the following topics did you learn about in teacher training courses, both in or outof the university?COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY^ history/evolution.^ importance of computing (personal, business, and educational).^ impact of the applications of the computer.^ ethical issues (privacy, author copyright, etc.).APPLICATIONS^ editing/word processing/desktop publishing.^ drawing/art/illustration.r7 spreadsheets.ri database management.r7 statistical applications.n artificial intelligence/expert systems.^ tutoring languages.^ modelling and simulation.^ laboratory data acquisition. Cuestionario de Profesores 917717. (cont.)^ scanning/image processing.^ CAD/CAM/processes control/robotics.^ telecommunications/e-mail/computer networking.^ educational/recreational games.^ music.PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND PROGRAMMING^ general concepts (files, variables, arrays, loops).n general programming procedures.^ structured programming.^ programming languages.^ problem analysis (algorithms, etc.)HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE PRINCIPLES^ basic concepts about computers and computing systems.^ hardware (computing architecture, CPU, control data flow).^ applications (software architecture, system software).INSTRUCTIONAL AND PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES^ applications of tutoring, drill and practice programs.^ how to look for evaluations of educational programs.^ how to evaluate educational programs.^ integration of computer programs to existent classes.^ organization of the use of computers during the lectures.^ Other (please, specify11] NONE OF THE ABOVE18. Taking into consideration the results of these training courses, as well as all pedagogical andtechnical aspects, what would be your opinion about them?^ Excellent^ Good^ Average^ DeficientEl Mediocre Cuestionario de Profesores 10178SECTIONTERSONALINFORMATIOM:::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.::: .^.:.:.'....".:.":.:::::"":."":19. Please indicate the highest educational degree you have received.^ Undergraduate - partial^ Undergraduate - complete^ Graduate - Masters^ Graduate - Doctorate^ Other (please, specify)20. How many years of experience have you had in the field of education?Years of experience in education:21. What year where you born?1922. What is your gender?^ Male^ Female23. If you want to make any additional comments about any aspect of computing, both personallyor for education, please use this space to do so. Cuestionario de Profisores 11179APPENDIX CAdministrative Interview Schedule180ADMINISTRATION INTERVIEW SCHEDULEBACKGROUND QUESTIONS1. Location of the university.2. Size of the university- Approximate student population and trend over past three years.- Number of branches.- Approximate General Budget.- Percentage of Budget that is covered by subsides.3. Mission of the university- Orientation (Technical, Social, Arts).- Majors offered.- Availability of technical careers.- Market, target population of the university.4. History- Goals set by the founders of the university.- Development of th university.STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY1. Organizational structureDecision-making organisms.Administrative departments.Academic deparments.Role of computer centre in administration.- Flow of administrative decisions regarding computing.2. Professors- Number of professors.- Salary structure.- Requirements.181COMPUTING1. Computing organizational structure and trend (centralized/distributed).2. Experience of the university with computing for administrative/academic purposes.3. Percentage of the budget dedicated to computing matters.4. Trends of investment in computing over the last few years.5. Special programs for professorsTrainingIncentives for computer purchases/financing- Incentives to use computers6. Purchase of computing equipmentFunds for adquisition of computing equipmentAgencies or aid programs that contribute to adquisition of computing equipment (if any).General description of the last major purchase of equipmentApproximate date.- Kind of equipment.- Rationale.Frequency of adquisition of computing equipment.7. Perceived advantages of computing- For administration- For education8. Problems of computing- For administration- For education9. Future Plans182APPENDIX DTechnical Interview Schedule183TECHNICAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULEHARDWARE AND OPERATING SYSTEMS1. Number of computers.2. Types of computers- Mainframes.- Minicomputers.Workstations.- Microcomputers.3. Operating systems- Mainframes.Minicomputers.- Workstations.- Microcomputers.4. Experience with the use of computers.5. Plans for the future.6. Budget for computing.7. Number of computers available- For administration.- For professors.- For students.8. Types of computers available- For administration.For professors.- For students.184APPLICATION SOFTWARE1. Availability of application softwareFor administration.For professors.- For students.2. Software development- For administration.For professors.- For students.3. Off-the-shelf software used.For administration.For professors.- For students.PHYSICAL SUPPORT1. Availability of power generators.2. Quality of energy service (with and without generator).3. Availability of computers:- Location of computing resources- Access to computing resources (local/remote)HUMAN SUPPORT1. Available of technical support:- For administration.- For professors.-^For students.2. Experience of techical staff.1853. Training- For administration.For professors.- For students.4. General information provided about computing.1 86APPENDIX ETables for Figures in Chapter 4187Table for Figure 5Distribution of the highest degrees held by surveyed professors accross universities.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAUnderGrad (Partial) 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 3.85 0.00 8.33UndeiGrad (Complete) 55.26 80.00 20.00 60.71 76.92 55.56 66.67Master's 39.47 11.43 64.00 25.00 11.54 27.78 16.67Doctoral 5.26 8.57 12.00 10.71 7.69 11.11 8.33Other 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Did not answer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 0.00Total % 99.99 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.01 100.00Table for Figure 6Percentage of computer-using professors accross universities.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAUser 73.68 37.14 52.00 21.43 34.62 50.00 25.00Non-user 26.32 62.86 48.00 78.57 65.38 50.00 75.00Total % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Table for Figure 7Computing experience of computer users accross universities.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESA1 year 10.71 15.38 7.69 16.67 0.00 0.00 16.671-3 years 25.00 23.08 7.69 66.67 44.44 22.22 0.004 years or more 64.29 61.54 84.62 16.67 55.56 77.78 83.33Total % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.01 100.00 100.00 100.00188Table for Figure 9Computing experience of computer users accross universities.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAUniv/Traning 42.86 30.77 53.85 50.00 33.33 44.44 33.33Univ/Professor 0.00 0.00 15.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00At Home 10.71 0.00 7.69 16.67 11.11 11.11 16.67Somewhere else 46.43 69.23 23.08 33.33 55.56 33.33 16.67Did not answer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 33.33Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00Table for Figure 10Percentage of YES and NO responses to knowledge questions about computers.YES NO DNA Total %K1:I know several users of computers 90.48 8.33 1.19 100.00K2:I know several advantages ofusing computers in education 88.10 10.70 1.19 99.99K3:I know several criteria to judge printers 66.67 32.14 1.19 100.00K4:I know what a modem is 70.24 27.38 2.38 100.00K5:I know different kinds of computers 72.62 26.19 1.19 100.00K6:I know how to write a simple computer program 73.81 25.00 1.19 100.00K7:I know how to exchange data amongdifferent kinds of computers 41.67 57.14 1.19 100.00K8:I know how to copy a file from one disk to another 89.28 9.52 1.19 99.99K9:I know how to edit a document in a word processor 88.10 10.71 1.19 100.00K10:I know how to create a data file in a computer 88.10 10.71 1.19 100.00Table for Figure 12Percentage of computer users who said they had computers available at their universities.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAAvailable 75.00 69.23 100.00 33.33 55.56 55.56 50.00Not Available 25.00 30.77 0.00 66.67 44.44 44.44 50.00Total % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00189Table for Figure 13Percentage of users who said the number of computers was adequate, and inadequate.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAAdequate 35.71 84.62 30.77 33.33 44.44 11.11 0.00Inadequate 60.71 15.38 61.54 16.67 33.33 77.78 83.33Did not answer 3.57 0.00 7.69 50.00 22.22 11.11 16.67Total % 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00Table for Figure 14Percentage of computer users who experienced hardware-related problems.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESALimitations of equipment 35.7 23.1 30.8 0 0 33.3 33.3Maintenance is deficient 42.9 23.1 23.1 0 33.3 44.4 50Insufficient peripherals 35.7 46.2 30.8 50 33.3 33.3 50Table for Figure 15Percentage of non-users who did not use computers because of hardware-related reasons.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAInsufficient computersComputers not accesible10604.5545.4533.3358.3318.1859.0911.7647.0622.2266.6711.1138.89Table for Figure 16Percentage of computer users who experienced software-related problems.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAApps are difficult to use 7.14 7.69 30.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67Apps only in English 21.43 15.38 23.08 16.67 44.44 11.11 16.67No information on Apps 21.43 23.08 46.15 16.67 44.44 11.11 16.67Not enough Apps 46.43 38.46 23.08 33.33 22.22 11.11 16.67No Manuals & Support 50.00 38.46 46.15 50.00 44.44 33.33 50.00190Table for Figure 17Percentage of users who said the location of computers was adequate, and inadequate.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAAdequate 46.43 61.53 61.54 33.34 55.55 44.44 50.00Inadequate 42.86 7.69 30.77 16.67 22.22 44.44 33.34Did not answer 10.71 30.77 7.69 50.00 22.22 11.11 16.67Total % 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.01 99.99 99.99 100.01Table for Figure 18Percentage of users who said the supply of electricity was adequate, and inadequate.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAAdequate 57.14 53.84 69.23 0.00 55.55 44.44 16.67Inadequate 32.15 7.69 23.07 33.34 22.22 44.44 66.67Did not answer 10.71 38.46 7.69 66.67 22.22 11.11 16.67Total % 100.00 99.99 99.99 100.01 99.99 99.99 100.01Table for Figure 19Percentage of computer users who obtained computer training by different means.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAUniv/ as a professor 21.43 23.08 38.46 0.00 11.11 11.11 33.33Other 32.14 38.46 0.00 33.33 44.44 33.33 0.00Univ/ as a student 53.57 46.15 69.23 16.67 33.33 55.56 66.67Technical Institute 53.57 76.92 23.08 66.67 55.56 22.22 83.33Table for Figure 20Percentage ofprofessors who thought there was not enough training opportuni ty.INTEC^O&M^PUCMM^UCSD UNIBE UNPHU^UTESANon-users 70.00 36.36 66.67 54.55 35.29 55.56 38.89Users 46.43 61.54 30.77 50.00 55.56 55.56 66.67191Table for Figure 21Percentage ofprofessors who were aware of, and given training courses at their university.INTEC UNIBE UNPHUSome courses offered, but I have not participated in any of them 60.53 46.15 50.00No courses have been offered 13.16 42.31 44.44Yes, I have participated in one or more courses in my university 26.32 7.69 5.56Did not answer 0.00 3.85 0.00Total % 100.01 100.00 100.00Table for Figure 22Percentage of professors who said these topics were taught in training courses.INTEC UNIBE UNPHU TOTAL NComputers and Society1:History and evolution of computers 45.45 46.15 42.86 45.24 19.002:Importance of computing. 63.64 61.54 71.43 64.29 27.003:Impacts of the applications of computers 54.55 53.85 42.86 52.38 22.004:Ethical Issues (Privacy, copyright, etc.) 9.09 23.08 14.29 14.29 6.00Applications5:Editing, word processing, publishing 77.27 61.54 71.43 71.43 30.006:Drawing, art, illustration 9.09 38.46 42.86 23.81 10.007:Spreadsheets 54.55 30.77 42.86 45.24 19.008:Database management 45.45 46.15 42.86 45.24 19.009:Statistical applications 36.36 15.38 0.00 23.81 10.0010:Artificial intelligence, expert systems 4.55 0.00 28.57 7.14 3.0011:Tutoring languages 13.64 38.46 28.57 23.81 10.0012:Modelling and simulation 13.64 15.38 0.00 11.90 5.0013:laboratory data acquisition 4.55 0.00 14.29 4.76 2.0014:Scanning, image processing 4.55 38.46 0.00 14.29 6.0015:CAD/CAM, processes control, robotics 9.09 15.38 14.29 11.90 5.0016:Telecommunications, e-mail, networking 13.64 15.38 42.86 19.05 8.0017:Educational, recreational games 13.64 23.08 42.86 21.43 9.0018:Music 4.55 15.38 14.29 9.52 4.00192Table for Figure 22 (cont.)INTEC UNIBE UNPHU TOTAL NProblem Analysis and Programming19:General concepts (files, variables, etc.) 72.73 53.85 42.86 61.90 26.0020:General programming procedures 54.55 23.08 42.86 42.86 18.0021:Structured programming 36.36 15.38 42.86 30.95 13.0022:Programming languages 45.45 30.77 42.86 40.48 17.0023:Problem analysis (algorithms, etc.) 40.91 15.38 28.57 30.95 13.00Hardware and Software Principles24:Basic concepts about computers 81.82 53.85 85.71 73.81 31.0025:Hardware (comp. architechture, CPU, etc) 27.27 38.46 28.57 30.95 13.0026:Applications (system software, etc.) 13.64 30.77 14.29 19.05 8.00Instructional and Pedagogical Issues27:Applications of tutoring, drill and practice 18.18 15.38 28.57 19.05 8.0028:How to look for evaluations of educ. pgm 0.00 0.00 14.29 2.38 1.0029:How to evaluate educational programs 4.55 7.69 28.57 9.52 4.0030:Integration of software to existing classes 9.09 15.38 14.29 11.90 5.0031:Organiz. of computer usage in classes 4.55 7.69 28.57 9.52 4.0032:Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Table for Figure 23Professors rating of the training courses received in their universi ty.INTEC UNIBE UNPHUMediocre 19.05 20.00 14.29Deficient 23.81 0.00 0.00Average 19.05 0.00 0.00Good 33.33 30.00 85.71Excellent 4.76 50.00 0.00Total % 100.00 100.00 10.000193Table for Figure 24Percentage of users who said the availability of technical personnel was adequate, and inadequate.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAAdequate 39.28 61.54 30.77 33.33 44.44 55.56 50.00Inadequate 42.85 30.77 61.53 16.67 22.22 33.33 33.33Did not answer 17.86 7.69 7.69 50.00 33.33 11.11 16.67Total % 99.99 100.00 99.99 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00Table for Figure 25Percentage of users who said the experience of technical personnel was adequate, and inadequate.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAAdequate 53.57 53.85 46.15 33.33 66.67 66.67 66.67Inadequate 28.57 15.38 46.15 16.67 11.11 22.22 16.67Did not answer 17.86 30.77 7.69 50.00 22.22 11.11 16.67Total % 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.01Table for Figure 26Percentage of professors who thought poor maintenance of equipment was a problem.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAIs a problem 32.14 23.08 15.38 0.00 22.22 33.33 50.00Not a problem 64.29 76.92 69.23 83.33 66.67 55.56 50.00Did not answer 3.57 0.00 15.38 16.67 11.11 11.11 0.00Total % 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Table for Figure 27Sources of information for computer users who keep up-to-date in computingINTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAUniversity Info 14.29 15.38 0.00 0.00 11.11 0.00 16.67Other 10.71 30.77 7.69 16.67 33.33 22.22 16.67Magazines 42.86 69.23 46.15 33.33 44.44 22.22 66.67Friends and Colleagues 64.29 76.92 76.92 83.33 100.00 22.22 66.67194Table for Figure 28Percentage ofprofessors who thought availability of information was adequate, and inadequate.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAAdequate 28.57 46.15 46.15 50.00 55.55 22.22 33.33Inadequate 53.57 15.38 38.46 0.00 22.22 66.67 50.00Did not answer 17.86 38.46 15.38 50.00 22.22 11.11 16.67Total % 100.00 99.99 99.99 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00Table for Figure 29Number of users and non-users that were aware of, and participated in training courses.USERS NON-USERSYes, I have participated in one or more courses in my university 9 4Some courses offered, but I have not participated in any of them 27 17No courses have been offered 10 14Total (n) 46 35Table for Figure 30Percentage of the applications used by professors that are in Spanish.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESANone 25.00 7.69 53.85 33.33 22.22 22.22 16.67Less than 10% 50.00 53.85 38.46 50.00 33.33 55.56 66.6710% - 90% 21.43 23.07 0.00 16.67 44.44 22.22 0.00More than 90% 3.57 15.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67Did not answer 0.00 0.00 7.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total (%) 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.01195Table for Figure 31Percentage of computes users who experienced administrative/organizational problems.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESANot enough student interest 3.57 23.08 0.00 0.00 11.11 11.11 0.00Not enough professor interest 21.43 30.77 30.77 16.67 44.44 33.33 16.67Not enough time to learn 46.43 61.54 15.38 16.67 22.22 44.44 0.00Not enough admin. support 46.43 30.77 38.46 16.67 33.33 55.56 33.33Not enough financial support 50.00 46.15 61.54 16.67 0.00 44.44 100.00Table for Figure 32Percentage of non-users who thought these were reasons for not using computers.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESANo interest in learning comp. 0.00 0.00 8.33 0.00 5.88 0.00 0.00Not enough admin. support 30.00 18.18 16.67 36.36 17.65 22.22 11.11Not enough guidance for profs 30.00 27.27 41.67 31.82 5.88 33.33 38.89Not enough financial support 50.00 13.64 33.33 40.91 11.76 55.56 22.22Not enough time to learn 30.00 54.55 25.00 13.64 35.29 11.11 50.00Table for Figure 33Percentage of computes users who experienced problems using computers for instruction.INTEC O&M PUCMM UCSD UNIBE UNPHU UTESAProblems integratingcomputers to the curriculum 50.00 0.00 23.08 0.00 11.11 22.22 33.33Not enough help tosupervise students 42.86 38.46 7.69 33.33 44.44 11.11 33.33Profs lack knowledge on usingcomputers for education 53.57 38.46 61.54 16.67 22.22 44.44 50.00Not enough guidance to helpprofessors use computers 57.14 38.46 38.46 0.00 55.56 55.56 66.67196Table for Figure 34Percentage ofprofessors who use each kind of computer application.APPLICATION % USERSWord Processing 83.33Spreadsheets 64.29Graphics 55.95Database 55.95BASIC 50.00Stats 45.24Graphic Arts/Drawing 42.86Games 41.67Other languages 38.10Drill & Practice 32.14Simulations 23.81CAD 21.43Data Acquisition (Labs) 8.33Music 7.14LOGO 7.14Table for Figure 35Frequency with which professors who use each kind of computer application.ALWAYS OFTEN SOMETIMES RARELYWord Processing 32.14 32.14 17.86 1.19Spreadsheets 16.67 22.62 17.86 7.14Graphics 11.90 19.05 13.10 11.90Database 11.90 15.48 21.43 7.14BASIC 10.71 9.52 19.05 10.71Stats 3.57 11.90 20.24 9.52Graphic Arts/Drawing 5.95 11.90 14.29 10.71Games 2.38 5.95 16.67 16.67Other Languages 10.71 13.10 9.52 4.76Drill & Practice 11.90 10.71 4.76 4.76Simulations 1.19 7.14 8.33 7.14CAD 1.19 5.95 9.52 4.76Data Acquisition (Labs) 1.19 0.00 1.19 5.95Music 0.00 0.00 2.38 4.76LOGO 1.19 2.38 2.38 1.19197Table for Figure 36Percentage of professors who use applications for personal, educational use, or both.PERSONAL BOTH EDUCATIONALWord Processing 32.14 46.43 3.57Spreadsheets 25.00 32.14 5.95Graphics 28.57 19.05 7.14Database 34.52 15.48 4.76BASIC 27.38 14.29 7.14Stats 26.19 13.10 4.76Graphic Arts/Drawing 23.81 14.29 3.57Games 35.71 2.38 2.38Other Languages 14.29 17.86 4.76Drill & Practice 2.38 16.67 10.71Simulations 11.90 5.95 4.76CAD 14.29 5.95 1.19Data Acquisition (Labs) 4.76 3.57 0.00Music 5.95 0.00 0.00LOGO 4.76 0.00 2.38198


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items