KNOWLEDGE IS THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT ‘I?) the Kditor:

Thank you for publishing “The Myth of thc Educational C:omputcr.” Onc wow dcrs how previnus gencrations managed to Icarn a thing without a computer or an Internet connection in thc classroom.

I takc issue with the recommendation that wc “teach aiid lcarn from educa- tors.” It paints way tno rosy a picturc nf nrganizcd education. As syndicated columnist Thomas Sowcll wrote nn 18 May 1999, “Schools arc quick to hlanic everyone and cverytliing hut thcmselvcs for tlic failures of Amcrican education” (http://www.jcwisl~wo~l~lrevicw.~o~iiicols~ sowell0.51899.asp).

I’eaching is an art, hut then so is cook- ing. I” not convinced that a four-ycar degree is necessary or sufficient for being either a teachcr or a chcf. What is esscn- rial is knowlcdge of the subjcct being taught.

We should tcacli and learn from domain cxperts. Do it any other way, and the tail is wagging tlie dog.

Craig E . Groeschel Fort Lauderdale, Flu. cgmesch@heIlsozrth.net

SEARCHING FOR EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Tf, the Editor:

I read Nevillc Holmes’s “Thc Myth of the Educational Computer" with great interest.

Bccause funds for purchasing personal cnmpiitcrs arc usually very limited, school administrators often arc left with the task of ”making do” with whatcvcr donations thcy happcn to bc nffered. This is often limited to equipment that has been donated or obtained through promotional offers. In addition to lim- ited funds for hardware, thc schools are cvcn more limited in funds for software.

Moreover, schools usually don’t havc adcquate resources fnr hiring personnel trained in hardwarc and software appli- cations. In inany cascs, this rcsponsibil- ity is relegarcd to a part-timc position or tu “computer savvy” part-timc volun- tecrs who may havc limited cnmpetcncy in optimizing the use of thc cquipmcnt.

In many schnol systcms, tlic goal nf

computcr-assistcd instructinn is primar- ily to expose the studciits to personal computcrs. It is assumed that, without such instruction, thc students will bc “left behind.” The instruction the studetits rcccive tends to be strictly of a practical nature. They Icarn siicli things as how to launch applications, log cm to the Internet, and usc a word processor.

I fear that this approach, while well intentioncd, is misguided aud that, even with the limitations in funding, the avail- able rcsourccs are misspent. It seems that wc arc missing opportunitics for better machinc-administere~l drill and com- puter-assisted education.

Being a computcr professional, I might he ahlc to prcscnt insights on seizing thcsc npportunitics in my own child’s school. How can I hest approach this sit- uation? Are there any recommendations for software and hardware that best approach the idcal for machine-admio- istercd drill? !-lave any resourccs evalu- ated the mass of prcsently availablc educational software? Is information availahlc ahout the integration o f per- sonal computcrs into a system’s educa- tional philosophy? I ani most interested in obtaining rcfcrcnces for an edncator- nrientcd audicnce (as opposcd to tlic computcr profcssional).

Ihger Siirenson Software engineer Madison, Wisc. rsoren@itis. cam

Neville Holmes replies: 1 fcar the kind of situation you descrihe

is only too common, and certainly not confined to North America.

I a m not cnnfidcnt that having educa- tors train the computer lab instructors is the best idea. That way it is too easy for the overworked cducator to do the traiii- ing as a way of passing over thc respoii- sihility. A partnership is thc better way, with each training the other. Hut there is anotlicr often overlooked resource-the studciits.

Most schools liavc older students who have learned, or could easily learn, to writc interactive prngrams. Drill and practicc programs don’t need to hc very complcx, and, directed by tlie cducator and the lah instructor. such students

could writc quite suitable program- and learn a lot doing it. The students would nccd to havc fairly close supervi- siun, hut that way tlie control and inter- est stays within the school, and the software can hc evolved the way thc edu- cators nccd it as thcy learn about what can hc donc. Buying software often brings problems with it, so this should hc done very carefully aiid purposefully and under the educator’s control.

HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIATION WAVES To the Editor:

Ted I.cwis did not mention the licalth effects of radiation waves i n his Octnher column (“UhiNct: The Ubiquitous Inter- net Will Be Wirclcss,” pp. 128, 126-127). Whilc there may he no problem, it cer- tainly seems likc there is me. What hap- pens to the wireless industry if there is a scarc nf canccrniis brain tumors over- hanging them?

I’d like LIS to adopt thc uotion that wireless systems inlist r a d’ rate no inore than tlic power of a cordless phnne. Microwatts not milliwatts of wirclcss will savc the day.

Larry Berrzstein Short Hills, N.J. IbernsteinBworldnet.att.net

Ted Lewis replies:

not, nr not, or not ... # I don’t know if wirelcss is harmful or

e your letters. Snndthemto mpufer, PO Box3014,10662 os Cir., Los Alamltos, CA 90720

14 821 4010: computer@ Letters are subject to editing

January 2000