[P1] [OT] iBook article in the NYT

[Rick Banuelos]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 07:00  AM, Jack Rodgers wrote:

> While recognizing the worth of the computer, I wonder if computerizing 
> the schools makes the kids learn more? Have there been any independent 
> tests to compare the knowledge acquired by today's kids versus kids 
> from 40 or 50 years ago?


Maybe, maybe not. As a recent university graduate, I can guarantee you 
that nearly 2/3 of my peers had difficulty reading at an 8th grade 
level (typing mistakes aside). I actually knew one person who could not 
read-- and he was a journalism student! He just made it clear that he 
"liked newspapers when he was a kid, so it's probably cool." I'm not 
saying that I'm the best writer (or reader) out there, but I can read 
and digest material suitable up to a freshman-college level. 
Schopenhauer still leaves me illiterate, yet still I try.

It's almost doubtless that technological advances have provided 
children with the opportunity to learn more about newer things; 40-50 
years ago, the jet engine was still in its infancy, while we now take 
it for granted. 50 years ago, nobody (save a few oil prospectors and 
the French) knew who or where Vietnam was.

The worth of the computer is simple: it stimulates curiosity, and 
delivers content. I don't think a computer makes children learn more, 
but it does entice them to explore the content on the machine simply 
because they are COOL. Whether or not a child learns is a matter of the 
content provided. I know I would have loved to have programs like 
Mathematica or Painter when I came up through K-12; I was spurred on 
enough by LOGO on a IIe and low-resolution graphics on a IIgs.


Rick

--
"The graveyards are full of indispensable men."

--Charles De Gaulle