Reaction to Chicagoland Extra Article

After reading the Wed., Nov. 24th Chicagoland article, "In more schoolrooms, kids' future is electronic," I came away impressed with the fact that going online enables students to work at their own pace but far less satisfied that, by doing so, the quality of interaction between students and teachers will be maintained and, in turn, the educational experience will be greatly enhanced.

As a long time teacher, I have been down this road before in a somewhat different fashion. The 1970's was a period of independent study. Packets were handed to students and they were to work at their own pace. I wasn't convinced then that this was all it was cracked up to be. I found far too many students left in the lurch, having too little interaction between the teacher, packet and student.

I believe the article gives the impression that if students have the use of their own computer, each day, they will learn faster, better, and more efficiently. Roughly translated, in my view, the article is saying that students will receive a better education. Not so fast!

Though the computer software is far more about students "having some control over things now," than the individualized packet I see one very glaring similarity. If 25or 30 students are left alone to work online on their Algebra, Advanced Physics or Sociology and many of them are in different portions of said work, where does that leave the teacher who has to interact with all of the students on an individual basis?

Teachers are 'stretched' enough as it is, I see this as stretching them even further, trying to respond to each student.

I didn't advocate for the abandonment of individual learning packets in the 70's nor am I calling for dropping online learning in 2010. That would be foolish. But putting a computer in front of a student for the entire period or most of them each day is not much different than putting a book in front of them for most periods or having them learn largely from packets.

I believe there is an inherent truth about any learning tool. That device will only be as good as the quality of interaction between student and teacher. Kids have all sorts of questions about the computer, packet, or book and they will need to have input from teachers.

I have conducted research on this in the middle part of the decade, asking students the value of learning tools, including computers and teachers. The vast majority of 1,000 respondents rated the value of teachers higher than the value of computers.

I would caution educators and the public at large about jumping to the conclusion that each student having their own computer, in and of itself, will necessarily lead to a better education.

Dick