CHILDREN AND THE COMPUTER VIRUS

Too many school boards and parents think that any new technology is going to make their children smarter and better prepared for the future. With so much emphasis on education, school boards and parents are grasping at any new technology to educate their children, and most believe computers will be their salvation. Whatever your attitude toward computer technology, neither this machine itself, nor the software it uses, will solve our problems. It's only a tool. Students demonstrate that people react to and treat computers, no matter what their software, as more "human" than machines. The minute we add software, we are subject to the objectives, knowledge, interest, and the biases of the programmers.

CLIFFORD STOLL, a pioneer of the internet comments,"The computer requires almost no physical interaction or dexterity beyond the ability to type...and demands rote memorization of nonobvious rules. Using this 'tool' alters our thinking processes"(1). According to George Burns, director of computer at Bank Street College of Education in New York City, 90 percent of educational software is not worth buying. Most is programmed by "techies" who have little if any knowledge-or interest-in child development of educational philosophy. Most "educational" software is crowded with time-consuming effects that do little but distract children from real learning.

The promoters of computers in schools again offer research showing improved academic achievement, and the same research still comes under occasional attack. A poll taken last year of teachers ranked computer skills and media technology as more "essential" than European history, biology, chemistry, and physics; than dealing with social problems, practical job skills and reading modern American writers. In Mansfield, Massachusettes, administrators dropped teaching positions in art, music, physical education, then spent $333,000 on computers. Ironically a half dozen prelimanary studies recently suggested that music and art may build the physical size of a child's brain, and it's powers for subjects such as language, math, science, and engineering far more than computer work did.

SHERRY TURKLE, a professor of the sociology of science at MIT and a longtime observer of children's use of computers said, "The possibilities of using this thing poorly so outweighs the chance of using it well, it makes people like us, who are optimistic about computers, very reticent (2). Many educators think that traditional roles must change because todays students are increasingly difficult to teach. Their learning habits have been shaped by fast-paced media that reduces attention, listening and problem silving skills.

• Determine what purpose you wish to accomplish, considering the child's age.
• Libraries often have sample software and media help.
• Read reviews in reputable magazines or journals.
• Look for programs with varied levels of difficulty, and clear and understandable " graphical user interfaces".
• Examine graphics and sound critically.
• Does software encourage original thinking?

I encourage anyone who is thinking about buying software for their children or schools to read Dr. Healy's book for a much more in-depth study in this field.
In classrooms teachers are expected to use the new technology, but many have not been trained to use it, nevermind teach it. When children sit in front of a screen to use a writing program, some say they are developing their visual creativity, but can they write? If the program gives them ideas of what to write most children will choose an entertaining task rather than a more taxing one. Children with limited language skills, who are most in need of verbal exercise, are the most vulnerable. If we don't care about reading and writing and the motor skills needed to accomplish these tasks, then why are we bothering to send our kids to school? In the younger grades and preschool will the computer do more or as much as crayons or markers, paper pictures, glue and scissors or even a simple pencil, which are much cheaper?
Most CD-ROMs are produced by entertainment companies, not educators, and it represents a multibillion-dollar-a -year market. Where the bottom line is profits not our childrens education.
ROGER C. SHRANK,. director of Northwestern University's Institute for the Learning Science, say's,"Simply clicking to move something, choose a pictire to view, or change someone's hair color is not mentally stimulating." He wants the user to feel or draw a conclusion from the problem.
Taking a vitural walk through a museum is not the same as being there, touching the art seeing it in three dimensions not two. Listening to the guide, reading the captions or asking questions. How many children sitting in front of a computer will ask about something if it's easier to click and move on to the next subject?
Not all may be loss, cognitive or "intelligent" tutors offer more sophisticated self-paced teaching where real learning can take place. Cognitive psychologist first analyze the skill to be taught and determine a sequence of steps. Then they analyze how the computer will know if the desired learning is taking place. When the student makes an error, the computer will give cues and immediate feedback and coach him instead of simply giving the answer. How good is this software as a teacher? To date four fatal flaws characterize most research.

• First, studies cover too short a time span.
• Second, quality or type of software is not well controlled.
• Third, outcome measures, usually, standardized test tap only a limited span of skills.
• Fourth, a serious problem is failure to control for "teacher variables".

Since the most innovative teachers are often the ones to take up new technologies, their expertise, not computers, may account for positive gains. Conversely negative results can be found if computers are imposed upon a reluctant teacher.

Recently JAMES KULICK of the University of Michigan ran a series of seven studies in elementary and high school and found major discrepancies in the data. Some computerized instruction raised scores, but some lowered them. Most notable was when CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction) was compared with the same amount of time spent with pencil, paper,and printed materials, the traditional materials did as well or better. In short, the research on software's effectiveness is still limited, vague, and open to question.
Why are solid conclusions so elusive? Look at Apple Computer's "Classroom of Tomorrow", perhaps the most widely studied effort to teach using computer technology. In the 1980's Apple donated computers to thirteen schools. The equipment was worth more than $25 million dollars and after a decade of effort, there is scant evidence of greater student achievement. Educators on both sides may debate this, in any event, what is fun and what is educational may frequently be at odds.
Consider the scores at Sanchez, an elementary school in San Francisco's latino community. In a bilingual special education class of second, third, and fourth graders, Apple II's filled the lab. Because of the limited english skills, math drills were all they could all do together. Many kids kept a piece of paper handy to mark each number down while counting. Some kids used their fingers, or others just guessed. Once they arrived at answers and typed them onto the screen, they hoped it would advance them onto something fun the way Nintendos, Game Boys and video arcade games do. It was highly motivating for them the teachers said, but did they learn? And how practical is it, as one girl continued to count on her fingers. The teacher admited they still need hands-on learning. This example and many others can be found in an article by TODD OPPENHEIMER entitled, The Computer Delusuon(5).
Reading programs get particulary bad reviews. One controlled study which evaluates the Reading Rabbit, a reading program now used in more than 100,000 schools caused students to suffer a 50% drop in creativity. Students showed a markedly diminished ability to brainstorm with originality. What about hard sciences which seem so well suited to computer study? LOGO, the high-profile programming language refined by SEYMOUR PAPERT widely used in middle and high schools, expected huge advances in expanding children's cognitive skills(6). Papert believes they would learn "procedural thinking" similar to the way a computer processes information. Unfortunatley LOGO has generally failed to deliver on its promises. JUDAH SCHWARTZ ,a professor of education at Harvard said, "When used properly, it can expand children's math and science thinking". Still he acknowledges that "99 per cent of educational programs are really terrible".