A young adult is certainly old enough to have mastered reading and writing. Which was my point.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Hibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: University City <UnivCity@list.purple.com>
Cc: Christine Hibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:21:46 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [UC] computers bad for learning?
I've got to chime in here. Obviously the computer bashers are operating with their head in the sand. Join the 21st century already. I have a dislexic child who labored with blackboard notes all through school- labored is an understatement. last year our child got a laptop, this young adult types fast and can copy notes form the board much faster than her peers laborously hand write them. They are on the computer to review, rearrange, sort and highlight. In addition, research note and new clips can be added to the note to flesh them out. This is a great learning tool and has made an amazing difference in my child's school performance. I wish I had one in the dark ages when I was in school.
> From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: March 22, 2005 5:31:16 PM EST
> Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com
> Subject: Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?
> Reply-To: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dan Widyono wrote:
>
>>> time?" The teacher responded, "Any fool, can be taught to operate a >>> machine. You're being taught how to solve the problem yourself."
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Children should not be allowed to use computers until they master >>> the basic skills of the three R's on their own. Age 10 at the >>> earliest.
>>>
>>
>> Bah humbug, Bruce. It's up to the parents to make sure that *if* >> they use a
>> computer, they are _also_ taught problem solving and other essential >> skills
>> at the same level ex! pected as if they hadn't a computer. That's the >> whole! >> point of implying there are other effects like economic status and >> parental
>> involvement, in households with computers (in the article).
>>
>> Your blanket statement "don't use computers until 10" is not only
>> impractical, it's also as misleading as "computers definitely help >> kids
>> learn". If you extended your statement, you'd have to add "no TV >> until 10",
>> "no video games until 10", etc. Computers don't halt learning, >> uncontrolled
>> usage and inappropriate limits halt learning.
>>
> Actually, Bruce's comments are perfectly reasonable. Consider the fact > that I'd never laid fingers on a computer keyboard until I was maybe > twelve or thirteen, maybe older, when our school got Apple IIs set up. > (I was born in 1963. You do the math.)
>
> As for this "up to ! the parents" stuff, that's misleading. We're > talking about what _schools_ can do. It's understood that parents have > a responsibility here.
>
> And my skills with computers are, if not spectacular, much better than > most. I'd say I was the last generation to be raised _without_ > computers, and I have noticed a distinct demarcation; younger users > are more comfortable with computers, but they don't seem to understand > what the computer's actually _doing_ behind the interface.
>
> I don't have the references handy, but there's better evidence to > suggest that _music_ education helps students far more than computers > do.
>
> ----
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> <http://www.purple.c! om/list.html>.
>
> From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: March 22, 2005 5:31:16 PM EST
> Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com
> Subject: Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?
> Reply-To: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dan Widyono wrote:
>
>>> time?" The teacher responded, "Any fool, can be taught to operate a >>> machine. You're being taught how to solve the problem yourself."
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Children should not be allowed to use computers until they master >>> the basic skills of the three R's on their own. Age 10 at the >>> earliest.
>>>
>>
>> Bah humbug, Bruce. It's up to the parents to make sure that *if* >> they use a
>> computer, they are _also_ taught problem solving and other essential >> skills
>> at the same level ex! pected as if they hadn't a computer. That's the >> whole! >> point of implying there are other effects like economic status and >> parental
>> involvement, in households with computers (in the article).
>>
>> Your blanket statement "don't use computers until 10" is not only
>> impractical, it's also as misleading as "computers definitely help >> kids
>> learn". If you extended your statement, you'd have to add "no TV >> until 10",
>> "no video games until 10", etc. Computers don't halt learning, >> uncontrolled
>> usage and inappropriate limits halt learning.
>>
> Actually, Bruce's comments are perfectly reasonable. Consider the fact > that I'd never laid fingers on a computer keyboard until I was maybe > twelve or thirteen, maybe older, when our school got Apple IIs set up. > (I was born in 1963. You do the math.)
>
> As for this "up to ! the parents" stuff, that's misleading. We're > talking about what _schools_ can do. It's understood that parents have > a responsibility here.
>
> And my skills with computers are, if not spectacular, much better than > most. I'd say I was the last generation to be raised _without_ > computers, and I have noticed a distinct demarcation; younger users > are more comfortable with computers, but they don't seem to understand > what the computer's actually _doing_ behind the interface.
>
> I don't have the references handy, but there's better evidence to > suggest that _music_ education helps students far more than computers > do.
>
> ----
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> <http://www.purple.c! om/list.html>.
>
