澳门跑狗论坛

鈥擠ave Cutler

Thomas Edison was a brainy fellow. In 1913, the future father of talking movies declared that 鈥渂ooks will soon be obsolete in the schools.鈥� He added a prophecy that would fit just fine in many 21st-century mouths: 鈥淥ur school system will be completely changed in the next 10 years.鈥�

I went to school three miles from Edison鈥檚 old laboratory. Every so often, we students would sit in the dark of our classroom while a cutting-edge Bell and Howell clicked along in the background. But nobody with a brain was exhorting our school to toss the books and park us in front of a well-oiled 16-millimeter Filmosound.

Today we鈥檙e up to our hips again in technology hype. Books are once more obsolete, while computers are vital for teaching everything from basic skills and critical thinking to problem-solving and creativity鈥攁ll of which, without silicon, are doomed to become as dusty and antiquated as a chalkboard.

Or perhaps a cellular phone. The cellphone I once kept in my car for emergencies was the size of a loaf of bread, but could only place phone calls. Despite its impressive bulk, it couldn鈥檛 broadcast digital images worldwide via satellite. Of course, it鈥檚 unclear why anybody outside of MI5 would need a portable phone that can broadcast digital images worldwide via satellite. But technology can do it, so we鈥檝e got to have it.

Do you think we could find better things to do with our time and resources than transmit tiny videos of trivialities?

A lot of the latest technology at school is just as conspicuously nonessential. And the uses to which we put it beg the same question: Isn鈥檛 there something better we could be doing with our time and resources?

It depends on whom you ask. In a 2004 survey of 11,000 teachers, 90 percent ranked technology as 鈥渋mportant鈥� or 鈥渧ery important.鈥� Of course, the survey was conducted online, which means that most of the 11,000 already liked technology enough to click on an Internet survey. It鈥檚 like polling in a sushi restaurant to determine how popular sushi is. If you didn鈥檛 like it, you probably wouldn鈥檛 be there.

After an experimental, one-to-one laptop program in a Maine high school was studied, the Associated Press trumpeted: 鈥淟aptops Raise Student Performance.鈥� Unfortunately, the 鈥減erformance鈥� consisted of such subjective criteria as 鈥渋mproved student-teacher interaction鈥� and students鈥� perceptions that 鈥渓aptops improved the quality of their schoolwork.鈥� The impact of laptops on actual achievement was unclear. Writing scores improved somewhat, while social studies and science figures remained unchanged. Reading and math performance actually declined.

These lackluster findings echoed results obtained after Maine gave laptops to every 7th and 8th grader in the state. Two years and $37 million later, math scores improved slightly, while writing, reading, and science scores either dropped or didn鈥檛 change. A University of Chicago study of California classrooms similarly found no evidence that Internet access has 鈥渁ny measurable effect on student achievement.鈥�

Undaunted by bad news, technology boosters continue to cite their own ardor and student testimonials as evidence. When New Hampshire experimented with its own laptop giveaway, one 7th grader quoted in a news report enthused, 鈥淚 forget to bring pens and pencils to class, but you won鈥檛 have to use pens and pencils with the laptop.鈥� First of all, someone needs to point out to the lad that he鈥檒l still need to remember to bring something to class, namely his laptop. Second, how do you rate the rigor of a 7th grade program that eliminates pens and pencils?

Meanwhile, a Baltimore 5th grader, referring to laptop science videos, testified that science is 鈥渆asy鈥� with 鈥渢he computer to show us.鈥� Visual aids, even filmstrips, have always come in handy, but what he really meant was that watching a video is easier than reading, an endangered skill we can鈥檛 afford to neglect further. In fairness, you can鈥檛 blame a 10-year-old for not realizing this, which is one reason not to put much stock in the instructional judgments of 10-year-olds.

Or 9-year-olds. In a 2004 California study, half of the 9- to 17-year-olds surveyed complained that they didn鈥檛 get enough online time at school. The same study noted that more than 2 million American kids, some as young as 6, have their own personal Web sites.

Do we really send our kids to school so that they can spend time online? As for giving 1st graders Web sites, shouldn鈥檛 you have to learn to write your name with something besides a crayon first?

A model 5th grade class used PowerPoint to reproduce and narrate the students鈥� daily schedule. It鈥檚 far from clear why this needed doing, but according to their teacher, the 鈥渂iggest challenge鈥� was the battle for the microphone, because the kids 鈥渨anted to record their voices over and over again.鈥� She figured this was because they 鈥渃ared so much.鈥�

Meanwhile, an art teacher took photographs of students鈥� pencil drawings. Then she scanned them into a computer, so the children could make electronic changes before she printed them and turned them into drawings again. In another giant leap for mankind, a project on the solar system included the comment 鈥淧luto is not a dog鈥� displayed 鈥渢wice, with graphics.鈥�

And these are the achievements we鈥檙e proud of. These are the headlines.

One geography teacher raved in print about the Internet because it lets students 鈥渓ook at the region, the country, and at maps.鈥� Instead of getting bogged down in 鈥渁n international news story,鈥� which kids view as 鈥渟ort of a dry topic,鈥� the teacher said, a student 鈥渄oing Jamaica鈥� can use the Internet to 鈥渟ee pictures鈥� and 鈥渓isten to Bob Marley.鈥�

Excuse me, but regions, countries, maps, and

pictures still appear in books. And you don鈥檛 need the Internet to listen to Bob Marley. In fact, you don鈥檛 need to listen to Bob Marley to write a report about Jamaica. If computers are leading us to substitute reggae for international news, on the grounds that it鈥檚 available and isn鈥檛 as dry, we鈥檙e headed in a perilous direction. Besides, the last thing schools need to encourage in our increasingly semi-literate society is a heightened dependence on video images.

The problem isn鈥檛 merely that we鈥檙e wasting millions on excessive heaps of technology without any detectable academic benefit. A 2004 University of Munich study of 174,000 students in 31 countries concluded that students who use computers at school several times a week actually perform 鈥渟izably and statistically significantly worse鈥� as a result. Computers appear to distract students, while simultaneously crowding out traditional learning methods.

Phrases like 鈥渢raditional learning methods鈥� don鈥檛 go over well with the cutting-edge crowd. I don鈥檛 want to mirror that bias. After all, discarding something just because it鈥檚 old is no less reckless than discounting it just because it鈥檚 new. Technology, whether it鈥檚 chalk or a keyboard, can be a helpful tool. We need to get reasonable, though, about the value of what computers actually deliver, and what we鈥檙e losing as they multiply in our classrooms.

Technology champions counter that students need to learn to use these new tools. OK. An index is also a tool. How much time and money should I spend teaching kids to use it?

Teaching students to use a book鈥檚 index isn鈥檛 the same as teaching them the knowledge in the book. And teaching kids to use a computer isn鈥檛 the same as teaching them.

Yes, kids like computers. That鈥檚 partly because they feed our modern addiction to lightning-fast images and user ease. But when it comes to learning, 鈥渁ctive鈥� and 鈥渇un鈥� don鈥檛 equal valuable. 鈥淪martboards,鈥� for example, are whiteboards onto which computer images can be digitally projected, and used in lieu of a blackboard. They cost a few thousand dollars apiece, but boosters claim they鈥檙e worth it because they鈥檙e 鈥渋nteractive.鈥�

So am I. And I鈥檇 rather my students interact with me.

Technology apostles promise wonders, from higher graduation rates to 鈥渆ngaged鈥� students who can鈥檛 wait to go to the interactive 鈥渂oard.鈥� But learning isn鈥檛 a video game. It鈥檚 the comprehension of difficult concepts and the acquisition of complex skills, and that kind of mastery doesn鈥檛 suddenly become easy just because the picture鈥檚 on an LCD screen instead of from a Bell and Howell projector.

Sooner or later, the thrill of the bells and whistles wears off, and kids are back to the deed of learning and all the toil and sweat it requires.

You can鈥檛 blame 10-year-olds for not understanding this.

But we鈥檙e not 10.