Well, a pencil will cost about a dime and could be distributed even
farther. But the that leaves open the question of exactly what
we are trying to accomplish. If we're trying to teach kids to
use computers effectively to learn and produce things of value,
I would argue the $2000 computer is, in fact, less expensive. Buying
the wrong tool to accomplish a task is very costly, even if the
tool is cheap.
> > [...] The notion that it is WORTHWHILE, much less NECESSARY for the
> >average user to have a clue what goes on "under the hood" or to be able
> >to write a single line of code in any language is HOGWASH.
>
> People who don't have a clue about how their cars work are a menace!
> It's absolutely the responsibility of a driver's ed class to
> explain *why* you need to watch the level of oil and brake-fluid,
> and rotate the tires, etc etc etc...
>
> The basics of computer literacy are *empowering*-- they allow buyers
> to make informed choices, and users to avoid unnecessary repairs.
You're confusing the tool with the product. Yes, kids should be
taught basic computer skills, but that isn't the GOAL. When you're
teaching Shakespeare, you don't spend your time explaining how books
are made. When you're leaving on a field trip to the nature center,
you don't begin by explaining how the bus engine works.
It's not possible to teach kids everything there is to know about
computers, so we must make choices about what is important to
teach. Is one better off knowing how to set up a document in
PageMaker or knowing how to install a RAM chip? Is one better
off knowing how to use a spreadsheet or knowing how to swap
serial adapters? Is one better off knowing how to find AskERIC on
the web or knowing how to find the optimum memory configuration?
We can't teach everything. Isn't it far more empowering to
teach the higher-order objectives?
Stephen E. Collins
sec@web66.coled.umn.edu