- Email: [email protected]
The economics of instruction software—Analysis and implications
THE ECONOMICS OF INSTRUCTION SOFTWAREANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS D. W. MCCULLOCH Lecturer
in Economics,
Faculty of Business Administration, Newtonabbey, Co Antrim, N. Ireland
Ulster Polytechnic. BT37 OQB
Jordanstown.
Abstract--The article demonstrates that instruction software is a ‘public’ good, in the economic sense, and that the instruction programs now in use make up a stock which will only be fully utilised if certain public overheads are incurred. The implications of this analysis are then examined.
INTRODUCTION We may
define
instruction
software
as: “Any
computer
program
which,
by design:
(a) causes
learning
to occur; (b) provides students or staff with feedback, more or less detailed, on the learning process, or (c) provides an experience which is believed to encourage or cause learning”. Examples of each are (a) conventional teaching programs; (b) multiple choice test programs and (c) simulation or game programs. It is evident that the volume of such software in existence (both ‘publicly-described or alluded to in the literature-and in private) is considerable; software for computerised instruction began to be written at least ten years ago[l] and the literature on what has become known as Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) continues to grow. The rate of addition to the software stock must also be increasing; the relatively low level of computer expertise now required of CA1 programmers, with the plummeting cost of hardware, enables more and more people to join that previously select band. Our definition therefore encompasses a large, growing, and diverse population of programs, in use on a rather less wide variety of different machines, to achieve a finite number of different educational objectives. In Economics, a ‘public’ good is something which has value and can be consumed or used by more than one person at once[2]; an apple is a ‘private’ good-once I have enjoyed a particular ‘Red Delicious’ no-one else may have that privilege-whereas if you wish to provide for your defence, as conventionally defined, against international attack, there is no means by which you can prevent me from ‘enjoying’ the same defence ‘goods’. Likewise, the hardware of a particular ICL 1902s computer system is a private good, which only one firm or college can use (control) at once. However, the software which constitutes its operating system is, essentially, a public good; developed once, it can be used by any number of installations at no cost in terms of real resources. Of course buyers will pay ‘public’ rent to ICL for this software, but this is a transfer of incomes; there is no cost to society as a whole in terms of goods or services foregone. Now, to what extent can instruction software be termed as ‘public good’? There are two limiting cases: Case I: A program written for the PLATO system, an extent that a tutor with access to ‘only’ an IBM to find the PLATO program of no value whatsoever. Case II: An ICL 1902s BASIC program written the Southampton University compiler; a tutor with similar educational objectives, be glad to get such a alterations, use it with his students.
which utilises the facilities provided to such 370 using typewriter terminals would seem for use with a specific make of VDU and access to an identical system would, given program, and would probably, after minor
In the latter case, the program is a public good with no costs of transfer apart from mailing the paper or magnetic tape from one institution to the other; in the former, it must be noted that the complete lack of hardware compatibility does not imply that the program has zero worth. If educational objectives are similar, then at the least the instructor may learn from the program, particularly (in the case of a CA1 program) with reference to its sequencing and its pacing. It follows that, while the value of the program may not be sufficient to make its transfer and use worthwhile, the design it embodies constitutes a public good, despite the problems of hardware compatibility. Let us now turn to the costs imposed by different degrees of hardware incompatibility; the fact is that the cost of transferring most successful programs is a ‘public’ overhead in the same way 293
294
D. W. MCCULLOCH
as the programs themselves are ‘public’ goods. As an example, consider DIP 1, which teaches students the basic theory of demand at the Ulster Polytechnic, using no software devices beyond simple loops, string and numeric variables, and print instructions. Should an Economics tutor with access to the IBM 370 at Newcastle wish to transfer the program to his installation, the cost in time and trouble would probably be small, given the relative simplicity of the program, and its avoidance of any specific facilities outside the BASIC language’s usual range. But whether the cost was great or small, once it had been incurred for one ICL 1902 to IBM 370 transfer, it need not, in principle, be incurred again, by any lecturer from an IBM 370 installation. In Economics, however, we find that ‘economic’ man has not much respect for such principles as these; rationally, as individuals, authors of programs have no reason to hand over their program listings for nothing, nor have they any reason to meet the costs of transfer in the absence of any commitment by a ‘buyer’ to recompense them. Further, potential ‘buyers’ can have no reason to pay anything for goods whose value they cannot appreciate until someone has incurred the transfer costs; this applies with equal force to the position where an exchange of software is proposed. It is true that the UK Computers in Higher Education Software Scheme (CHESS), among others [3], attempts to surmount these difficulties by a ‘club’ approach, but one continues to hear of institutions where authors wish to be paid for the software they have developed, and will not otherwise part with it. This impasse is regrettable, because teaching expertise, teachers’ effort, and computer time are going to be wasted on the development of new programs which duplicate, or make the same mistakes as, programs already in existence. The programs we already have will be used, for the most part, only in the institution where they originated, and since in most cases, a program’s educational objectives will not be unique to that institution, a transfer of the program would improve educational facilities at little or no extra cost, beyond the additional computer time required. (If the new program is a replacement, to be used as often as its predecessor, and the cost of transfer was low, then the facilities will have been improved at little or no cost.) Finally, when programs are transferred between different systems, the costs of transfer will be incurred, many times over, by different institutions whose systems are similar enough to enable the cost to be spread. (A case in point is the University of California at Fresno which has kindly supplied Ulster Polytechnic with programs free of charge; we will need to use important resources to convert these into ICL BASIC, rather more slowly, and at greater national cost, than if one national body converted the programs into the various BASIC versions operated in UK colleges.) The market system is noted for its inability to distribute public goods efficiently, and the main implication of our analysis is that substantial wastage of important resources will occur if no action is taken by governments. We provide defence services on a national basis; our roads and our legal system are also provided ‘publicly’, and it seems appropriate for the nation acting as a whole to provide arrangements for the efficient production and dissemination of instructional software. Whatsoever form they take, these arrangements must involve the exercise of considerable imagination and foresight, taking into account as they must the usual operation of self-interest as the motivating force of individuals and institutions. Without a program to make it into a designed purposeful entity, a computer is an ‘incomplete machine’[4]; without the drive from the self-interests of authors and their institutions, any measures which attempt to maximise rather than waste our CA1 resources are likely to fail. REFERENCES 1. Annett J., Computer Assisted Learning 1969/1975, SSRC (1976). 2. Reynolds L. G., Economics, a General Introduction. Irwin (1973). 3. Fielden J. and Pearson P. K., The Cost of Learning with Computers. Council
for Educational Technology (1978); Harris R. and Sneldon A., Pricing or Taxing:> Institute for Economic Affairs (1976); Hooper R., NDPCAL, Final Report of the Director. Council for Educational Technology (1977). 4. Ellis A. B., The Use and Misuse of Computers in Education. McGraw-Hill, Nev: York (1974).
in Economics,
Faculty of Business Administration, Newtonabbey, Co Antrim, N. Ireland
Ulster Polytechnic. BT37 OQB
Jordanstown.
Abstract--The article demonstrates that instruction software is a ‘public’ good, in the economic sense, and that the instruction programs now in use make up a stock which will only be fully utilised if certain public overheads are incurred. The implications of this analysis are then examined.
INTRODUCTION We may
define
instruction
software
as: “Any
computer
program
which,
by design:
(a) causes
learning
to occur; (b) provides students or staff with feedback, more or less detailed, on the learning process, or (c) provides an experience which is believed to encourage or cause learning”. Examples of each are (a) conventional teaching programs; (b) multiple choice test programs and (c) simulation or game programs. It is evident that the volume of such software in existence (both ‘publicly-described or alluded to in the literature-and in private) is considerable; software for computerised instruction began to be written at least ten years ago[l] and the literature on what has become known as Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) continues to grow. The rate of addition to the software stock must also be increasing; the relatively low level of computer expertise now required of CA1 programmers, with the plummeting cost of hardware, enables more and more people to join that previously select band. Our definition therefore encompasses a large, growing, and diverse population of programs, in use on a rather less wide variety of different machines, to achieve a finite number of different educational objectives. In Economics, a ‘public’ good is something which has value and can be consumed or used by more than one person at once[2]; an apple is a ‘private’ good-once I have enjoyed a particular ‘Red Delicious’ no-one else may have that privilege-whereas if you wish to provide for your defence, as conventionally defined, against international attack, there is no means by which you can prevent me from ‘enjoying’ the same defence ‘goods’. Likewise, the hardware of a particular ICL 1902s computer system is a private good, which only one firm or college can use (control) at once. However, the software which constitutes its operating system is, essentially, a public good; developed once, it can be used by any number of installations at no cost in terms of real resources. Of course buyers will pay ‘public’ rent to ICL for this software, but this is a transfer of incomes; there is no cost to society as a whole in terms of goods or services foregone. Now, to what extent can instruction software be termed as ‘public good’? There are two limiting cases: Case I: A program written for the PLATO system, an extent that a tutor with access to ‘only’ an IBM to find the PLATO program of no value whatsoever. Case II: An ICL 1902s BASIC program written the Southampton University compiler; a tutor with similar educational objectives, be glad to get such a alterations, use it with his students.
which utilises the facilities provided to such 370 using typewriter terminals would seem for use with a specific make of VDU and access to an identical system would, given program, and would probably, after minor
In the latter case, the program is a public good with no costs of transfer apart from mailing the paper or magnetic tape from one institution to the other; in the former, it must be noted that the complete lack of hardware compatibility does not imply that the program has zero worth. If educational objectives are similar, then at the least the instructor may learn from the program, particularly (in the case of a CA1 program) with reference to its sequencing and its pacing. It follows that, while the value of the program may not be sufficient to make its transfer and use worthwhile, the design it embodies constitutes a public good, despite the problems of hardware compatibility. Let us now turn to the costs imposed by different degrees of hardware incompatibility; the fact is that the cost of transferring most successful programs is a ‘public’ overhead in the same way 293
294
D. W. MCCULLOCH
as the programs themselves are ‘public’ goods. As an example, consider DIP 1, which teaches students the basic theory of demand at the Ulster Polytechnic, using no software devices beyond simple loops, string and numeric variables, and print instructions. Should an Economics tutor with access to the IBM 370 at Newcastle wish to transfer the program to his installation, the cost in time and trouble would probably be small, given the relative simplicity of the program, and its avoidance of any specific facilities outside the BASIC language’s usual range. But whether the cost was great or small, once it had been incurred for one ICL 1902 to IBM 370 transfer, it need not, in principle, be incurred again, by any lecturer from an IBM 370 installation. In Economics, however, we find that ‘economic’ man has not much respect for such principles as these; rationally, as individuals, authors of programs have no reason to hand over their program listings for nothing, nor have they any reason to meet the costs of transfer in the absence of any commitment by a ‘buyer’ to recompense them. Further, potential ‘buyers’ can have no reason to pay anything for goods whose value they cannot appreciate until someone has incurred the transfer costs; this applies with equal force to the position where an exchange of software is proposed. It is true that the UK Computers in Higher Education Software Scheme (CHESS), among others [3], attempts to surmount these difficulties by a ‘club’ approach, but one continues to hear of institutions where authors wish to be paid for the software they have developed, and will not otherwise part with it. This impasse is regrettable, because teaching expertise, teachers’ effort, and computer time are going to be wasted on the development of new programs which duplicate, or make the same mistakes as, programs already in existence. The programs we already have will be used, for the most part, only in the institution where they originated, and since in most cases, a program’s educational objectives will not be unique to that institution, a transfer of the program would improve educational facilities at little or no extra cost, beyond the additional computer time required. (If the new program is a replacement, to be used as often as its predecessor, and the cost of transfer was low, then the facilities will have been improved at little or no cost.) Finally, when programs are transferred between different systems, the costs of transfer will be incurred, many times over, by different institutions whose systems are similar enough to enable the cost to be spread. (A case in point is the University of California at Fresno which has kindly supplied Ulster Polytechnic with programs free of charge; we will need to use important resources to convert these into ICL BASIC, rather more slowly, and at greater national cost, than if one national body converted the programs into the various BASIC versions operated in UK colleges.) The market system is noted for its inability to distribute public goods efficiently, and the main implication of our analysis is that substantial wastage of important resources will occur if no action is taken by governments. We provide defence services on a national basis; our roads and our legal system are also provided ‘publicly’, and it seems appropriate for the nation acting as a whole to provide arrangements for the efficient production and dissemination of instructional software. Whatsoever form they take, these arrangements must involve the exercise of considerable imagination and foresight, taking into account as they must the usual operation of self-interest as the motivating force of individuals and institutions. Without a program to make it into a designed purposeful entity, a computer is an ‘incomplete machine’[4]; without the drive from the self-interests of authors and their institutions, any measures which attempt to maximise rather than waste our CA1 resources are likely to fail. REFERENCES 1. Annett J., Computer Assisted Learning 1969/1975, SSRC (1976). 2. Reynolds L. G., Economics, a General Introduction. Irwin (1973). 3. Fielden J. and Pearson P. K., The Cost of Learning with Computers. Council
for Educational Technology (1978); Harris R. and Sneldon A., Pricing or Taxing:> Institute for Economic Affairs (1976); Hooper R., NDPCAL, Final Report of the Director. Council for Educational Technology (1977). 4. Ellis A. B., The Use and Misuse of Computers in Education. McGraw-Hill, Nev: York (1974).