Gregory Levitt, major professor
In partial fulfillment of requirements for the General Exam
in the Curriculum and Instruction Ph.D. program
at the University of New Orleans
part of a General Exam Portfolio
July , 1999
In a large measure, each member of my committee contributed to my arriving
at this point in the Ph.D. program at UNO. Thank you.
This document serves to introduce the papers I have chosen to include in my
general exam portfolio. I feel that these works document the progress made during
my two and a half years here. The committee should view this introduction as an
abstract of each of the papers. A paper titled Getting into Position to Thinkwill
discuss the relationship of these papers and reflect on what I have learned and its
effect on my prospects as a student, a teacher, computer scientist, educator, scholar
The reflective piece mentioned above follows this introduction. After that,
there are five papers presented in the order in which they were written, starting
with the Thesis for my masters degree in Computer Science. Rereading these papers
makes me proud to present them for your consideration.
Ubiquitous Software: An Information Network Paradigmis my Mater of
Science in Computer Science Thesis. Ubiquitous software can be understood as an
abstraction used to hide the complexities of Information Networks. A network is an
agreement to meet and an agreement to share. An information network can be
understood as the combination of the printing press and the automobile. The
printing press abstracts knowledge containers, autos abstract motion. Ubiquitous
software defines a set of software engineering principals that abstract, hide the
complexities of, sharing knowledge over pervasive computer networks. Does this
have an educational ring to it?
Users of information networks need to obtain services without concern for
architectural details or the location of information. My thesis indicates that
educational systems benefit most from information networks. But, for these benefits
to be realized, the underlying complexities of computers, software, and networks
must be invisible to end users. This is not yet true, but I can see the potential.
Much of the technical aspects of this thesis can be avoided by reading chapter
1, skimming chapter 2, skipping chapters 3 and 4, and skimming chapters 5, 6 and 7.
In computer science, three years is often a lifetime, but I feel that the majority of my
thesis is still current and even forward looking. My inexperience as an educator is
open for your inspection.
I wrote this next paper at the end of the Fall semester of 1997. Being our final
exam assignment given by Dr. Richard Eilliott for EDFR 6420 (Philosophy of
American Education), it is titled Final Paper. The question posed by Dr. Eilliott
suggests that I choose between the philosophical view of democratic
communitarians and utilitarians in equity, individual rights, and schooling. This is
an interesting exercise because it represents the choices posed by everyone’s
everyday problems. Utilitarians believe that choices should bring the greatest benefit
to the greatest numbers of people. How do you argue against that? John Dewey’s
democratic communitarianism doesn’t reject utilitarianism, but he takes a more
pragmatic view. Dewey insists that we must consider consequences before and after
acting on choices. This is a recursive decision making process common in computer
science. Dewey’s intent is to provide a model for decision making, not a set of rules.
He insists upon direct observation and experimentation as feedback necessary to
evaluated prior decisions and to guide future ones. This is a post-modern view that
honors the past while looking to the future. At only five pages, I think you will be
interested in my presentation of this material.
1-3
4-5
