COLLOQUY Responses
|
|
COLLOQUY Responses
|
 The rush to the keyboard in most schools has become almost first-nature. It is hardly ever challenged by those viewing the educational process, simply because, still, at present, most would-be critics are less informed about its nature and eventual impact, than advocate-educators. President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's dream for universal hookups and accessibility is popularly fail-safe. Students, for the most part, would always prefer using the elements or building blocks parametered and available in packaged-programs, rather than in hand-crafting their own "blocks", if such an analogy is permitted. As an Industrial Designer and Inventor, who at mid-career has dove-tailed, but not replaced, my own imaginative "syntheses-to-solution," it is easy to see how truly innovative and creative thought might be pre-empted. This concern has ardent detractors, saying, "it" can do anything you can do, and perhaps better. My response to this is "what you mean is that someone else (the program creators) can do it better than I can." Not totally convincing! A rush to incorporate any technological advent, which may later take decades to divert or undo, is a constant education risk and curse of jumping on, and overloading, the first band-wagon in the parade.
|
IN THIS DEBATE: The question Background Responses Join the debate IN THIS SECTION: Colloquy Letters to the editor Write to us Help |
|||
|
||||
previous response