In Kentucky, as the Wall Street Journal reported, students in grades K-3 are mixed together regardless of age in a relaxed environment. It works great, the Journal says. Yes, scores on computation tests have dropped 10 per cent at one school, but not to worry: “Drilling addition and subtraction in an age of calculators is a waste of time,” the principal reassures us. Meanwhile, a Japanese educator informs University of Wisconsin mathematician Richard Akey that in his country, “calculators are not used in elementary or junior high school because the primary emphasis is on helping students develop their mental abilities.” No wonder Japanese kids blow the pants off American kids in math. Do we really think “drilling addition and subtraction in an age of calculators is a waste of time” If we do, then “drilling reading in an age of multimedia is a waste of time” can’t be far behind.
There’s no denying that computers have the potential to perform inspiring feats in the classroom. If we are ever to see that potential realized, however, we ought to agree on three conditions. First, there should be a completely new crop of children’s software. Most of today’s offerings show no imagination. There are hundreds of similar readings and geography and arithmetic programs, but almost nothing on electricity or physics or architecture. Also, they abuse the technical capacities of new media to glitz up old forms instead of creating new ones. Why not build a time-travel program that gives kids a feel for how history is structured by zooming you backward A spectrum program that lets users twirl a frequency knob to see what happens.
Second, computers should be used only during recess or relaxation periods. Treat them as fillips, not as surrogate teachers. When I was in school in the 60s, we all loved educational films. When we saw a movie in class, everybody won: teachers didn’t have to teach, and pupils didn’t have to lean. I suspect that classroom computers are popular today for the same reasons.
Most important, educators should learn what parents and most teachers already know: you cannot teach a child anything unless you look him in the face. We should not forget what computers are. Like books-better in some ways, worse in others-they are devices that help children mobilize their own resources and learn for themselves. The computer’s potential to do good is modestly greater than a book’s in some areas. Its potential to do harm is vastly greater, across the board.
1.We can learn from Paragraph I that（）.
2.Computers may inspire kids in learning by means of（）.
3.We can learn from Paragraph 3 that computers can be treated as（）.
4.Which of the following statement is true according to Paragraph 4（）.
5.The author’s attitude towards the use of educational computer programs is（）.
