Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!BILLW@SRI-AI.ARPA From: BILLW@SRI-AI.ARPA Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: more computer education Message-ID: <2963@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Sun, 10-Jul-83 06:17:19 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.2963 Posted: Sun Jul 10 06:17:19 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Jul-83 06:05:48 EDT Lines: 87 From: William "Chops" Westfielda050 3-Jul-83 12:22 BC-COMPUTERKIDS (Life-Style) By NADINE BROZAN c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - What happens to the ability of children to learn and reason when they are taught to use a computer, when they master the language it requires, when their labor is accomplished with methods that are a bold departure from paper and pen? No one really knows, according to the experts on computer education, but there are some hints in a project recently completed at the Bank Street School for Children. For the last two years, 51 pupils have been observed in two classes where they were taught Logo, a computer language, and used it in a variety of ways. One class was for third-and fourth-graders; the other, for sixth and seventh. Last week, the study was a topic of discussion at Columbia University Teachers College at a conference on the uses of high technology in early childhood education. Dr. Karen Sheingold, director of the Center for Children and Technology at the Bank Street College of Education, described the investigation, based on observations from the first year of the study; the second year, in which changes were made, remains to be analyzed. According to her assessment, the impact was more profound in the realm of social relations than in academic achievement. ''Children in both classes were excited by the computer and it made a major difference for some in their relationship to school and to each other,'' she said. ''There was more interaction and different interaction: it was much more task-relevant. When they were working on the computer, they would talk about the work at hand; when they worked together in other endeavors, such as math, they would discuss last night's television show. Some children became experts and resources to others, but they did not create teacher-student situations they shared equally.'' The intellectual impact was different. ''After one year or a maximum of 50 hours on the computer, the children could write short, simple procedures, but few mastered the language for more complicated concepts,'' Dr. Sheingold said. ''In their classroom work, they often made use of programs and commands that they did not understand.'' The study found virtually no differences between the two groups when it tried to assess whether children who knew how to devise computer programs were better equipped to do planning than those who did not. ''In general,'' Dr. Sheingold said, ''children were interested in making attractive, gamelike products. They wanted to make fun things happen on the screen, not to learn the Logo language, per se. When they were asked to find errors in existing programs, they detected only the most superficial ones of syntax and not ones of sequence or procedure.'' In another part of the project, a word processor was used for two six-week courses with a separate group of eighth-graders. The objective was to determine whether the ability to revise work through a technological tool altered the experience of writing. ''We assumed that if the capability was in the technology, children would take advantage of it,'' Dr. Sheingold said. ''But they did not do significantly more revising than they would have done with a pencil.'' In the second year of the project, the approaches to word processing were changed, and the results appear to have been more satisfactory. The students' tendency not to use the machine to revise the writing shows that ''children may not automatically grasp whatever interesting ideas and possibilities are built into the software or language and that long, intensive study is needed,'' Dr. Sheingold said. At most of the conference sessions, questions were far more abundant than answers. Among the questions: Will the use of computers in some inexplicable way alter the processes of thought? Does familiarity with a computer language enhance learning? Will children living in homes with computers have an advantage over those who do not? Are skills acquired in one computer program be applied to others or even to nontechnological endeavors? What effects will technology have on the way children communicate with others? As Ursula Wolz, associate director of the microcomputer resource center at Teachers College, said between sessions: ''This is all so new - microcomputers have only been around since 1978 - that there is no way to measure the impact. Some researchers are saying, 'Let's look at what is happening before it happens,' but the technology is advancing so fast that no one can keep up. Every time you draw a conclusion about what the computer industry is doing in education or where it is, it changes.'' nyt-07-03-83 1520edt *************** -------