DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 040 926
24
SP 003 963
AUTHOR
TITLE
INSTITUTION
SPONS AGENCY
REPORT NO
BUREAU NO
PUB DATE
CONTRACT
NOTE
Duncan, Glenn E. ; Bauch, Jerold P.
The Use of Computers and Simulation in the
Development and Management of GEM.
Georgia Univ. , Athens. Coll, of Education.
Office of Education (DHEW) , Washington, D. C. Bureau
of Research.
GEM-Bull-69-14
BR-8-9024
69
0 EC-0- 8- 089024-311 (010)
8p. ; Phase 1 , Elementary Teacher Education Model
EDRS PRICE EDRS Price M?-$0.25 HC-S0. 50
DESCRIPTORS ^Computer Oriented Programs, ^Models, ^Simulation
IDENTIFIERS Comprehensive Elementary Teacher Education Models
ABSTRACT
Georgia Educational Models (GEM) will proceed to
utilize computers and simulation to their fullest cost effectiveness
potential simultaneously in operation and in research, while avoiding
both the restrictions and duplications which come from doctrinaire
insistence on maintaining an artificial separation between management
and research uses of computer simulation models and the omissions and
"illusions of adequacy” which coma from too little interaction with
empirical facts and goals. The fundamental scientific paradigm which
has guided development and management of GEM thus far has proven
itself practical, effective, and economical and has demonstrated
itself to be feasible for carrying forth the further development, the
implementation, and the sustained operation of the GEM system through
creation and use of a computerized overall system simulation model.
(Author/J S)
NO
rvi
0 s
LLf
GEORGIA EDUCATIONAL MODELS
The University of Georgia
College of Education
Athens , Georgia 30601
THE USE OF COMPUTERS AND SIMULATION
IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND
MANAGEMENT OF GEM
GEM Bulletin 69-14
Glenn E. Duncan, B.S.
Jerold P. Bauch, Ed.D.
* Lninijjiuii i u ntrnuuuLt i nib 1
BY
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTEO
1969
iq/mC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING
UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OFFICE
OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRODUCTION
OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PER-
MISSION OF THE 0MM OWNER/'
rn
cr
m
O
o
cw
Note: This bulletin reports one of a series of investigations
designed to develop, evaluate and implement a model
teacher education program for the preparation of ele-
mentary teachers . This report was prepared pursuant
to a contract with the Office of Education, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare. Contractors
undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship
are encouraged to express freely their professional
j'udgment in the conduct of the proj'ect. Points of view
or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily repre-
sent official Office of Education position or policy.
This bulletin may not be reproduced without permission.
1
There has been little concensus in the literature to
date as to Just what the boundaries and interactions may be
between such frequently mentioned fields as systems analysis,
operations- research, management science, simulation, auto-
mation, etc. After mentioning the physical models used in
engineering, those who consider simulation alone usually re-
strict their definitions to the conducting of experiments
with a mathematical, statistical, and/or logical representa-
tion of an idealized simplification of some portion of an
existing or hypothetical system — usually on a large, fast
digital computer.
At what might be called the other extreme of a continu-
um, those who consider management alone define computerized
accounting and data processing to be automation of processes
within a system, even though these processes may be carried
out on the s am e sort of computer and may utilize programs and
subroutines logically identical to those used in simulation.
A clear separation between these two extremes is not main-
tained in the discussions following such definitions, nor
can it be maintained by consideration of purpose alone. It
is more profitable to ask when, why, and how to use computers
in a project.
Building a mathematical model, validating and optimi-
zing the model on a computer, and finally implementing and
putting it into practice is a valid engineering strategy in
a well -developed field. However, any approximation to this
2
strategy is hazardous in a complex and partially-developed
field such as education. Recent literature contains many
discussions of specific results of doing this, such as over-
fascination with computer gadgetry, attempts to predict the
future in great detail from the past, ignoring of factors
which can T t be quantified, creation of procedures which "blow
up” after great checkout expense when tried out for the first
time on real data, etc. Perhaps all these ills and more are
best summed up by Hartley* s phrase "illusions of adequacy."
Many other difficulties are evident from the literature
(Forrester, 1961; Hartley, 1969; Oettinger, 1969; Silvern,
1965) .
The use of such an engineering strategy in an area where
there is no well -understood underlying science is hardly con-
sistent with the simplified scientific paradigm from which
systems analysis, operations research, and management science
supposedly are derived -- repeatable real data first, then
tentative mathematical models of the known real phenomena, then
analytical experiments with these models, then real experi-
ments with selected cases, then continual improvement through
continual interaction of all the four previous steps and in-
finitum or until a satisfactory steady state or an insurmount-
able obstacle is encountered.
3
The study of feasibility and the planning for future de-
velopment of GEM have been closely guided by this paradigm.
As the first step of the paradigm reaches a certain stage of
completeness, the first mathematically trivial models become
useful for studies of allocation, utilization, and scheduling,
for the optimazation of cost-effectiveness, and for the de-
termination of critical areas of timing and resource compe-
tition. Here a computer becomes useful not because of
complexity of the simulation model, but because of the large
amount of data, the large number of cases which must be ex-
amined, and the number of times the calculations must be re-
peated as conditions change and data becomes more precise.
GEM has now reached this stage of development and has a PERT/
COST model operating on the University of Georgia IBM 360/65
computer for investigation and management of costs and activity
scheduling. Many of the results of this feasibility study have
been obtained through use of this model and it will be used
in the future on a continuing basis •
In general the creation of simulation models and computer
programs in GEM will be for coordinated use both in management
and in continuing research and development. It will be car-
ried through three further stages: development of mathemati-
cally sophisticated dynamic models of processes and subsystems;
o
ERIC
4
interrelating of these processes and subsystems to form a
computerized, adaptive, self -improving overall system simu-
lation model; and continuing operational use of this overall
system model, both as a management information, data processing,
and control system and as a tool in research for continually
improving the system itself and all its processes, components,
and subsystems.
In addition, the creation and operation of the overall
system model will aid cone eptualizat ion, help to assure con-
sistency and completeness of design and smoothness of oper-
ation, enable immediate transferrability to other institutions,
and facilitate rapid investigation of consequences and imple-
mentation of changes due to revised goals, technological
breakthroughs, changes in community environment, etc. Some
modeling of the environment and some forecasting will also be
done, but with emphasis on such practical factors as being pre-
pared to handle children already born or exploring advantages
of possible cooperative arrangements rather than on such highly
speculative factors as attempting to detail the course of the
future or being prepared to utilize likely technolom>:r1
breakthroughs .
The guiding philosophy in these developments will be to
increase the power, the flexibility, the rate of improvement
5
and the stability of operation of the GEM system as rapidly
as possible. This will be accomplished by gaining and utili-
zing new knowledge and understaning while simultaneously stri-
ving to lower costs through more effective techniques, better
organization and management, and increasing use of cooperative
arrangements and automation. Such an operation will be con-
sistently guided by ultimate human and social goals, cost-
effectiveness considerations, and a meticulous insistence on
an empirical basis for every feature of the system model and
a feature of the system model for every important empirical,
factor.
As the second stage of model design begins to provide
viable models of individual processes, new studies will be
added to the present cost, allocation, and scheduling investi-
gations . These investigations themselves will be directed
toward the outlining of cost-effectiveness tradeoffs and the
formulation of policies. For instance, new studies can be-
gin on the concurrence of the empirically -based portions of
various models of the teaching -learning process for design
purposes while areas of conflict and omission in these models
can be documented for research purposes. Meanwhile, use of
the first -stage models can be directed toward outlining cost-
effectiveness tradeoffs for such alternate processes as paper-
and-pencil vs computer -console evaluation of student performance
6
to aid in formulating policies for the implementation of auto
mat ion.
As the overall system model becomes operational, studies
of interaction effects and system dynamics can begin, both on
interactions among components within the system and on inter-
action of the system with its environment. For instance, with-
in the system there are obvious cost-effectiveness interactions
between candidate recruiting procedures, candidate selection
criteria, remedial PMs for entering candidates, number of path-
ways and degree of development of each within the curriculum
PMs, elaboration of facilities in remedial clinics, etc. In
the environment there are obvious advantages to cooperative
arrangements with other institutions in developing and test-
ing PMs, both in combining expert knowledge and in sharing
the cost of work or of engaging private contractors where con-
tractors could work more efficiently •
In summary, GEM will proceed to utilize computers and
simulation to their fullest cost-effectiveness potential
simultaneously in operation and in research while avoiding
both the restrictions and dupliations which come from doctri-
naire insistence on maintaining an artificial separation be-
tween management and research uses of computer simulation
models cand the omissions and ’’illusions of adequacy” which
come from too little interaction with empirical facts and
7
goals . The fundamental scientific paradigm which has guided
development and management of GEM thus far has proven itself
practical, effective, and economical and has demonstrated
itself to be eminently feasible for carrying forth the further
development, the implementation, and the sustained operation
of the GEM system through creation and use of a computerized
overall system simulation model .
References
Forrester, Jay W. Industrial dynamics . New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1961.
Hartley, H. J. Limitations of systems analysis. Phi Delta
Kappan , 1969, 50, 515-519.
Oettinger, A. G. & Marks, S. Run computer, run: The myth-
ology of educational innovation — An essay . Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969.
Silvern, L. C. The evolution of systems thinking in edu-
cation . Los Angeles: Educational Training Consul-
tants, 1965.
