Mark P. Line <mline@ix.netcom.com> replied:
> Won't that tend to exacerbate the problem of kids mastering the tools more
> fully than the history teacher?
>
> Take writing and math: although one would accept the existence of exceptional
> cases where a student writes better and uses math better than, say, her
> history teacher and her chemistry teacher, respectively, I wouldn't
> want to formulate educational policy based on the premise that this
> is almost _always_ going to be the case.
>
> By the same token, I'd want to make sure that I formulated policy on the
> premise that a history teacher will master tools like HyperStudio at
> least as well as almost all her students. I think that relying on the
> computer lab to see that students are skilled with HyperStudio is
> like relying on English and Math to see that students are skilled
> writers and are skilled at using math when they need it in other
> subjects. Although the educational system has, in fact, gotten
> away with this kind of "division of labor" for quite a while,
> I think many people now realize that there is another way.
Who cares if the students know the applications better than the history
teacher. That will and should happen throughout the student's education.
The history teacher is there to teach history not computer applications.
If the students know how to use HyperStudio effectively than the History
teacher can assign projects using HyperStudio with the expectation and
assumption that the students are familiar and knowledgable with the
application without having to worry about teaching the application. Then
they can focus on the subject at hand (history) instead of worrying
about the tool. That is true computer integration.
Jennifer Reed
reed2@worldnet.att.net