Monke's plea against computers in the classroom has just caused irration.... How naive can you be?
Of course, computers in education are not a replacement for human conversations, or creative subjects. What they are depends on how they are used. For my daughter in senior infants they allow her to practise some slightly more advanced arithmetic than most of the others are up to (once or twice a week). For her teacher it means that she can spend that time on other kids. And vice versa, of course: for my son in 4th class it means that he can get some attention from the teacher when some of the weaker kids are doing remedial sums on the computer.
And what's this other implicit assumption that human conversations are 'naturally good'? How naive can you be? ' Oregan trail' might not be good at explaining the deeper meaning of American migration, but do you really believe that all teachers are? Please come down to earth. A lot of teachers are not good at deeper meaning... or are simply not interested. Experiencing things with your hands? Sure, very important. But to transfer that to a new situation you need to be smart yourself and/or to have a good teacher (which in some cases might be a computer).
The best examples of computer use, of course, are those where kids collaborate and discuss what they are doing on the computer, explain to each other and teach to each other. Just like they do when they are playing outside.
Computers are just tools, why would we want to go back to education without them? We wouldn't think of throwing out books, or for that matter paper and pencil?
No comments:
Post a Comment