[comp.edu] Against educational fads

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/05/90)

-----
Cross-posted to sci.edu and misc.edu.

-----
In article <cRFNT2w161w@nstar.UUCP> freewill@nstar.UUCP (Bill Williston) writes:
> aren't writing skills and word processing synonymous in 1990? 

No.  No.  No.  Not the slightest bit.

One of the world's most preeminent computer scientists, who holds
an endowed chair in the Computer Sciences department here at the
University of Texas, does all of his writing with pen and paper.
In this, he is not alone in the department.  I mention him in
particular because of his iconoclastic views on word processors.
He thinks they are evil.  He thinks they cause writers to focus
on form rather than substance.  He thinks people write better
with pen and paper.

I think he is wrong.  If one were to look at the published
writings of the various professors in this department, I doubt
one could tell which authors write with pen and paper, which
dictate and then revise with pen, and which write with word
processors.  But you can tell who writes well and who writes only
competently.  This is my point: writing skills and media skills
are quite different. 

Given a college freshman who writes as well as Edsger Disjkstra,
but who has never seen a typewriter or computer, we can send that
student to an informal or vocational class, and within a semester
that student will be able to type, word process, and manipulate
MS-DOS better than ninety percent of the professors at the
university.  In the meantime, that student's handwritten papers
will be a joy to read, and a welcome break from the perfectly
printed dreck that is more common to college freshmen.  But given
a college freshman who does not know how to write, who cannot put
a verb in each sentence nor an idea in each paragraph, and who
does not know why this is important, then that student's further
education is stymied, regardless of how well that student's
fingers fly over the keyboard.  Remedial writing classes cannot
teach in one semester, or even eight, what was absent in that
student's first decade of learning. 

I do not object to high schools offering or mandating classes in
typing, word processing, driving a car, cooking, or any other
useful skill.  But I vehemently protest the idea that any of
these can substitute in even slight degree for the core academic
subjects.  An entering college student needs the writing skills,
mathematics, and basic literary, geographic, and historical
knowledge that primary and secondary schools are supposed to
teach.  If the student does not know how to word process (or how
to drive), that student may be inconvenienced.  Such small skills
are quickly made up.  But it is almost impossible to make up the
academic skills and knowledge that one is expected to acquire in
twelve years of learning! 

No, writing skills and word processing are NOT synonymous in
1990.  They will not be synonymous in 2000, nor in 2010.  In
2090, word processing may well be an obsolete practice.  But
writing skills will still be vital to a person's education, just
as they were in 1090, and 90.

> As a high school teacher I can tell you that schools begin
> 'failing' before high school.

Of that, I have no doubt.  But it is frightening that a high
school teacher would confound word processing with writing.
Please, I beg of you, for the sake of our children, think long
and hard about how our primary and secondary schools are failing,
and where the corrective measures lie.  Typing and word
processing classes are irrelevant. 

One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and
secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is
important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad.
WordPerfect is a passing fad.  The keyboard will last somewhat
longer.  But even after these are obsolete, it will still be
important to know how to put together a sentence.  Teach this
first. 

Russell

A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (12/05/90)

I found being taught to type in High School was one the most valuable
skills I was taught, and (because it is faster than writing) saved me
time later.

I dont think writing should be taught FIRST and typing/Word Processing
after, but they should be taught together (like Physical Ed and History).

One reason I have for saying this is that Writing will not be taught.
The reason for this is that it involves Thinking, and teaching these
things are time-consuming, difficult, and involve skills that many
(most?) teachers do not have.

I have taught at university level for 20 years and been an external
examiner at more universities (Oxbridge for example).  Students at that
level do not know how to express themselves (write).  My guess at the
reasons for this is outlined above.  Perhaps I am incorrect as to the
reasons. Maybe others have their own ideas.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Chamove
Massey University Psychology
Palmerston North, New Zealand

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/05/90)

-----
In article <1990Dec5.005509.11049@massey.ac.nz> A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes:
> I found being taught to type in High School was one the most valuable
> skills I was taught, and (because it is faster than writing) saved me
> time later.

Undoubtedly true.  I found that learning how to drive a car
in high school was of great convenience, since this is a 
skill that has saved me much time ever since.

> I dont think writing should be taught FIRST and typing/Word Processing
> after, but they should be taught together (like Physical Ed and History).

When I said of writing, "teach this first", I was urging a
priority of importance, not chronology.  I have nothing against
high schools teaching students how to drive before, during, or
after they teach the students world history, for example.  But
world history comes first.  If a high school must choose between
teaching world history well and not teaching students how to
drive, or teaching world history poorly and also teaching them
how to drive, then the former is the better course.

> One reason I have for saying this is that Writing will not be taught.
> The reason for this is that it involves Thinking, and teaching these
> things are time-consuming, difficult, and involve skills that many
> (most?) teachers do not have.

If twenty years from now, high schools no longer teach plane
geometry, because "it involves thinking, and teaching these
things is time-consuming, difficult, and involves skills that
many teachers do not have", should we then accept that geometry
will never again be taught in high schools, and that the best
we can do is add further convenient but inessential coursework
to the high school curriculum?  

To the extent that your analysis is true, it points out a major
problem.  The solution involves teaching the necessary skills to
teachers, firing those who cannot or will not learn these, hiring
those who will, and making the teaching of writing a top priority
in high schools.  Typing, word processing, how to drive a car,
how to cook, etc, are all nice things that schools can teach.
But they come second. 

Russell

thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (12/05/90)

I felt that Arnold Chamove's posting was very reasonable and as he stated, his
point of view. I can't understand why Russell came back and seemed to attempt
to prove that his argument, and only his argument is the correct argument.

Previously Russell stated:
> One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and
> secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is
> important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad.

For me, the more 'pernicious influence' is a teacher who 'knows' what is
important and attempt to enforce it.

Lighten up Russ, the worlds has lots of room for opinion.
--Thom Gillespie

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/05/90)

------
I wrote:
>> One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and
>> secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is
>> important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad.

In article <39897@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes:
> For me, the more 'pernicious influence' is a teacher who 'knows' 
> what is important and attempt to enforce it.

The only way I have attempted to "enforce" my views is through the
force of my words.  Traditionally, this is considered a much more
civilized way to express difference of opinion than most of the
alternatives.

I would ask Mr Gillespie to consider what our world would be
like if all primary and secondary schools tomorrow decided that
reading and writing are unimportant, and they were no longer
going to teach these subjects.  Would he complain?  Would he
stand up and say "some subjects are crucial, and schools should
teach these"?  Or would he consider it a pernicious influence to
take such a stand? 

Some cynics might suggest we already live in such a world.  I
don't believe this.  Instead, we live in one where many people do
not understand the importance of certain things, and so many
schools no longer give highest priority to the teaching of
writing when determining curriculum, selecting teachers,
allocating resources, and counseling students.  The result is not
that no one learns to write, but that the process is haphazard
and partial.  Many high school students learn to write quite
well.  Many others, including many of those who enter college, do
not know even the basics.  This lacuna from their primary and
secondary education becomes a barrier to their pursuits in
college and beyond. 

Some things are important.  Teaching students how to write is
much more important than teaching them how to use word
processors.  When someone suggests otherwise, they are wrong.  I
will not apologize for saying this. 

Russell

publius@halley.UUCP (publius) (12/06/90)

In article <15459@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>------
>I wrote:
>>> One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and
>>> secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is
>>> important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad.

I generally agree with Russell's view in this thread.  I simply want to point
out that even the higher education does not escape the problem of chasing
after passing fads.  Just consider the amount of money wasted in AI research,
which adds little to our industrial strength.  I have seen some PhDs in
Computer Science who wrote dissertations on AI yet know little about
the fundamentals of computer systems.

-- 
Publius            from Austin, Texas
E-Mail: publius%halley.UUCP@cs.utexas.edu
Disclaimer: I speak (and write) only for myself, not my employer.

marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe) (12/06/90)

Russell maintains that teaching students to type/use a word processor will not 
necessarily improve writing skills.  Although I agree with him in principle,
there is at least one interesting exceptional case:

Some individuals (of whom I was one) may have problems in writing (that is,
pen-and-ink, or even typewriter), not because of mental disorganization or
confusion, but because of perceptual difficulties which make it hard to FORM
THE LETTERS, or emotional difficulties which make it hard to commit anything to
paper.  These individuals can be helped enormously by the availablity of
mechanical devices, and can make the difference between quality assignments and
no assignments at all.

tom marlowe

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/06/90)

-----
In article <Dec.5.16.27.30.1990.6922@paul.rutgers.edu> marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe) writes:
> Some individuals (of whom I was one) may have problems in writing 
> (that is, pen-and-ink, or even typewriter), not because of mental
> disorganization or confusion, but because of perceptual difficulties 
> which make it hard to FORM THE LETTERS, or emotional difficulties 
> which make it hard to commit anything to paper.  These individuals 
> can be helped enormously by the availablity of mechanical devices, 
> and can make the difference between quality assignments and no
> assignments at all.

Mr Marlowe is, of course, correct.  What are conveniences for some
are necessities for others.

I don't want people to misunderstand what I am saying.  I think
word processors are great.  Almost all of my writing is done with
word processors or text editors.  But, with the exception that
Mr Marlowe notes, these are not essential to primary and secondary
education.  Teaching students how to write *is* essential.

It's like the difference between airconditioners and brakes in
cars.  Airconditioners are great.  Living in Texas, I think every
car ought to have one.  But brakes are essential.  

Russell

schales@photon.tamu.edu (Douglas Lee Schales) (12/06/90)

In article <1199@halley.UUCP> publius@halley.UUCP (publius) writes:

	[ Russell's comments deleted... ]

   I generally agree with Russell's view in this thread.  I simply want to point
   out that even the higher education does not escape the problem of chasing
   after passing fads.  Just consider the amount of money wasted in AI research,
					  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   which adds little to our industrial strength.  I have seen some PhDs in
			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Computer Science who wrote dissertations on AI yet know little about
   the fundamentals of computer systems.


I think it should be pointed out that *INDUSTRY* funds a large amount of the
AI research.  One would have to conclude that they consider it important,
perhaps not now, but for their future success.

While I am *NOT* an AI fanatic (computer systems and algorithms tend to
hold my fancy), I do recognize that many ideas have come from AI research,
and that its application in other areas will have many benefits.

Also, it should be recognized that Computer Science is becoming a very
broad field and expecting everyone in the field to know a lot about each
area is too much.  One does not expect a civil engineer to know how to
perform the tasks of an electrical engineer.  Why should we expect
AI/Software Engineering/Theory/Systems/etc experts to be competent in areas
outside their chosen fields?  Especially at the Ph.D. level where
specialization plays an important part.  No one area is more important than
the other, each has its place, otherwise, it would not exist.

(If I left your favorite field out above, don't hold it against me.  I just
took a quick sample of my memory space and those are the ones I found... :)
)

Comments/Suggestions/Criticisms/Flames/Hate-mail are quite welcome.

Douglas Lee Schales
schales@cs.tamu.edu
Dept. of Computer Science
Texas A&M University

jon@osf.org (Jon Taylor) (12/06/90)

  Thanks to Russell Turpin for bringing up this very important point:
 fads come and go, while real education, understanding, and knowledge are
 relatively permanent.  We have become so enamored of technological and
 scientific progress that we seem to think that nothing traditional has any
 value.  The schools only reflect this attitude.

  Mr. Turpin writes:

> One of the most pernicious influences on our primary and
> secondary schools are the teachers who do not know what is
> important and lasting in education, and what is a passing fad.

  I agree completely with the sentiment, but I do think it's a bit strong
 to fault teachers alone:  the educrats and politicians and the general
 public itself have to accept the blame as well.

  In another message he writes:

|> Some things are important.  Teaching students how to write is
|> much more important than teaching them how to use word
|> processors.  When someone suggests otherwise, they are wrong.  I
|> will not apologize for saying this. 

  Nor should you.  Well spoken - uh, I mean written - that is, processed?

  Seriously, this point can't be overemphasized.  No amount of technology
 will replace the need for human beings (educated ones, at least) to be able
 to use the written/printed word as a means of communicating ideas.  Relying
 on graphics and pictures and spoken language alone will lead, I believe, to
 a continuing increase in fuzzy thinking and a loss of ability to reason.

A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (12/06/90)

Russell

I am sorry if what I said appeared to be critical of your contribution.
I make it a rule NEVER to criticize what others say using E-mail, as (in
my observation and experience) it leads to unproductive interchange.  I
found your contribution thought-provoking (which is why I responded), and
insightful. 

I was only agreeing that word-processing and writing skills are
different; that I found both of value; and thought both should  be
taught.  I never meant to suggest that either should be dropped,
especially writing.  My contribution was wondering why it appears that so
few people know how to write.  I dont remember ever being taught (which
may be memory loss on my part).  

And following on from your response, I dont remember ever being taught
History "properly" either.  My instruction was all Names and Dates and
'Causes'.  It is only much later that I realized that there were lessions
of life embedded in all of that.  Judging from TV, there is very little
real History taught to TV journalists.  Comments on Iraq are all Hitler
references, and very little else.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Chamove
Massey University Psychology
Palmerston North, New Zealand

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) (12/06/90)

It seems to me that we may be approaching this from the wrong perspective.
I don't think that any of us want to emasculate the current high school
curricula by replacing mathematics/history/foreign language/whatever with
computer science.  Why not start encouraging students to program with
"alternative" projects?  For instance, wouldn't an "interactive timeline"
program have just as much validity as any History term paper?  Wouldn't
a computer simulation of a Chemistry experiment <not *every* experiment,
but perhaps one or two> be acceptable in place of the experiment itself?

Most schools with computer facilities dedicate those facilities to 
the computer science curriculum.  How about just throwing the lab open?
Almost all students take a "study hall" during their high school years.
Those students could be exploring computers during that time.  If their
instructors in other classes could accept some digital work in place of
regular assignments, the students might be more and more inclined to 
explore further.......

Teachers should be flexible enough to accept computer-based work as 
well as that created by pen and paper.  Why not come up with a policy
something like:
     "With the permission of the instructor, students may submit
      computer-based work in fulfillment of no more than two (2)
      assignments during this course.  The student must obtain the
      approval of the instructor for such work prior to submission."
So the scenario runs something like this:
     Teacher: OK, class, your next assignment is to write a paper
              on the plays of Shakespeare.  <brrrrrrring!>  That's
              all for today; your papers are due next Friday.
     Student: Mr. Wizard, I'd like to do something a little different.
              How about a quiz program that would ask questions about
              Shakespeare, his life, and his plays?  I could have it
              ask about memorable quotes and characters, too.
     Teacher: Well, I think that would be fine, but it's still due
              next Friday.
What's the big deal?  If the student does a good job, the teacher now
has a CAI tool for use with future classes.  The knowledge of Shakespeare
required for such a program is virtually the same as that required for a
term paper.  I admit that one cannot 'compare and contrast' in a computer
program, as can be done in a term paper.  That's the reason for the "per-
mission of instructor" clause in the policy.  The limit on assignments for
which computer work can be submitted also ensures that the student will 
have to demonstrate his analytical abilities during the course.

Comments?

-- 
    | Wes Morgan, not speaking for | {any major site}!ukma!ukecc!morgan | 
    | the University of Kentucky's |        morgan@engr.uky.edu         |
    | Engineering Computing Center |   morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC.BITNET  | 
     Lint is the compiler's only means of dampening the programmer's ego.

thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (12/07/90)

In article <15488@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-----
>In article <Dec.5.16.27.30.1990.6922@paul.rutgers.edu> marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe) writes:
>> Some individuals (of whom I was one) may have problems in writing 
>> (that is, pen-and-ink, or even typewriter), not because of mental
>> disorganization or confusion, but because of perceptual difficulties 
>> which make it hard to FORM THE LETTERS, or emotional difficulties 
>> which make it hard to commit anything to paper.  These individuals 
>> can be helped enormously by the availablity of mechanical devices, 
>> and can make the difference between quality assignments and no
>> assignments at all.
>
>Mr Marlowe is, of course, correct.  What are conveniences for some
>are necessities for others.
>
>I don't want people to misunderstand what I am saying.  I think
>word processors are great.  Almost all of my writing is done with
>word processors or text editors.  But, with the exception that
>Mr Marlowe notes, these are not essential to primary and secondary
>education.  Teaching students how to write *is* essential.
>
>It's like the difference between airconditioners and brakes in
>cars.  Airconditioners are great.  Living in Texas, I think every
>car ought to have one.  But brakes are essential.  
>
>Russell

There are a variety of ways to 'teach students how to write'. One is the grunt
and groan method with paper , eraser, and tears , a newer one is with a word
processor. IBM has a program which is amazing called "Write to Read". I've seen
it used with kids as young as 5 -- it is amazing. It uses the computer along
with the traditional methods to teach writing, costs money but is much more
effective 'Teaching students how to write'; There was a study done by BBN
called the Quill project. One of the sights was in Rural Alaska, I think the
school teacher was named Bonnie Bless. They quantified how many words kids used
in their stories before they were introduced to word processing. The difference
was considerable as you'd expect. Using a word processor like WriteNow with a
spell checker is amazing with kids. My son, who is one of those kids with a
physical problem writing, loves to use the word processor, writes more and
better with it, and always uses the spell checker because it has a button
called "guess" -- he thinks it's a game. Great motivator.

The earlier you introduce the correct tool , the better. For writing the tool
is the word processor. Kindergarten is early enough for most kids.

All this back to the basics talk is junk. What the basics are is anyones guess
and usually they leave out art and music. If you've ever heard Alan Kay talk
about kids and computers he always refers to music -- he's a musician -- his
whole basis for the Dynabook is the 'flute', the ultimate fanatsy amplifier.
Russel et al seem to relegate computing/programming to the drivers ed approach
of education, something that can occur whenever. If it is media than it must
occur early. 

Just 'another' point of view Russ, not yours obviously. Get airconditioned!
	Thom Gillespie

thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (12/07/90)

 >...
 >No amount of technology will replace the need for human beings (educated 
 >ones, at least) to be able to use the written/printed word as a means of 
 >communicating ideas.  Relying
 >...

 Mcluhan said ,"he didn't know who discovered water but it wasn't fish" He was
 talking about the blindness of society to the technologies of 'print', 
 'writing', 'language', etc. They are all technologies which we adapted to.
 What type of person did you have to become to use 'print'? What type of person
 would you have been if you didn't?

 We 'are' technology.

 Technologically yours,
	Thom Androbot

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/07/90)

-----
In article <39937@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes:
> The earlier you introduce the correct tool , the better. For writing 
> the tool is the word processor. Kindergarten is early enough for
> most kids.

I don't disagree.

> Just 'another' point of view Russ, not yours obviously. Get 
> airconditioned!

As I said before, I believe in airconditioning.  I also believe
in word processing.  Unlike Publius, I also believe (some) in AI.  

Having students use word processors will no more teach them to
write than having them use pencils.  They are an improvement,
just as pencils and erasers are an improvement over quill, knife,
and blotter.  If word processors make the teaching of writing
easier and faster, that is great.  But people still have to put
their own ideas together, and figure out how to best express
these ideas in words.  And students have to be taught to do this.
Don't confuse the tool with the skill. 

Russell

thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (12/09/90)

In article <15541@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-----
>In article <39937@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes:
>> The earlier you introduce the correct tool , the better. 

> ... long winding path ...

>As I said before, I believe in airconditioning.  I also believe
>in word processing.  Unlike Publius, I also believe (some) in AI.  
>
>Having students use word processors will no more teach them to
>write than having them use pencils.  They are an improvement,
>just as pencils and erasers are an improvement over quill, knife,
>and blotter.  If word processors make the teaching of writing
>easier and faster, that is great.  But people still have to put
>their own ideas together, and figure out how to best express
>these ideas in words.  And students have to be taught to do this.
>Don't confuse the tool with the skill. 
>
>Russell

THere is no cofusing the tool with the skill if you realize that there is no
separation between the tool and the skill. If you can play the piano, the
violin, the flute, then you can play music. If can't use the musical tools than
you can't play music -- there is not music without the tool. If you can't weild
a brush or a piece of lead then you can do the plastic arts:painting, printing,
etc. Can you play basketball if you can't bounce and shot the ball?

Can you write before you can handle the tools of pencil and paper -- they are
tools just as much as a word processor is a tool. The answer is no, like with
music, without the tools there is no writing, or music, or basketball. If you
can use the tools then you can play music, basketball, ... and write. Teach the
tools and you teach the skill.

Daniel Fader did some research and wrote a book called "Hooked on Books." He
figured that if you want to kids to read then you have to get to read. The only
way to get them to read was to give them what they wanted to read regardless of
the quality or subject matter ... it was very effective as you would expect. We
tend to get better at what we do the more we do it. He extended this approach
to writing and had kids writing daily -- copying from Newsweek or any other
written material was encouraged. They weren't 'taught' to write with a bunch of
disembodied rules, they 'learned' to write the way everything else in life is
learned ... by imitation. You learn to walk, talk, play music and basketball, 
all by imitation. First the tool and then the imitation, and then skill
develops. A.S. Neill observed the same development in the Summerhill school in
England. There is an element of 'desire' that has to come from within for
learning to be complete.

The problem with learning math has been that there haven't been good 'tools' to
learn to use, just rulers, protractors, and slide rules and symbolic rules. There have been studies which show that kids learn math quicker with a calculator
because they get to 'see' the pattern of the numbers develop quicker than if
they used paper and pencil -- these are elementary aged kids!

That was what Papert was trying to explain in "Mind Storms" with his 
development of LOGO. That is what 'tools' like Mathematica and other math 
simulators are doing today. Programming provides an excellent tool for 
'learning' math. And if you want to use programming in a math class then you
must the students must have the tool down cold. Word processors provide an 
excellent tool for 'learning' writing ... programming may also be an excellent 
tool for 'learning' writing?

Again, pencil and paper are tools just like a word processor, the alphabet is a
tool for communication -- all language is a tool for communication. You only
have skill when you have mastered the tool. There is no separation.

--Thom Gillespie

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/09/90)

-----
In article <39960@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes:
> THere is no cofusing the tool with the skill if you realize that 
> there is no separation between the tool and the skill. If you can
> play the piano, the violin, the flute, then you can play music. 
> If can't use the musical tools than you can't play music -- there
> is not music without the tool. ...
>
> Can you write before you can handle the tools of pencil and 
> paper -- they are tools just as much as a word processor is 
> a tool. ...

There is some truth in what Mr Gillespie says, but he presses the
point too far.  Yes, the student must be able to use *some*
writing tool in order to write.  It is also true, as others point
out, that some tools are more convenient and easier to use than
others. 

But for writing, mastery of the tool is NOT the same as mastery
of the skill.  One can be adept at word processing, and be a
terrible writer.  There are countless examples of this.
Conversely, one can be an excellent writer, despite not being
good with any tool; such as an author who writes only with pencil
and paper, and that in a crabbed hand that only the author's
dedicated secretary can read.  (A real example is Stephen Hawking,
who is a good writer, but I doubt there is *any* writing tool at
which he is proficient, unless one wants to count his assistant as
a "tool" rather than a kind listener who transcribes his work.)

This is where the analogy with music falls flat.  To be an
excellent musician, one must be excellent with some instrument.
Not so writing.  In writing, one can master the tools, and still
be a terrible writer.  Is this true in music?  (Some might say
that there are technically adept players who lack musicality, but
are we not now distinguishing degrees of excellence, rather than
proficiency from ineptness?)

When I speak of writing, it should be clear that I am NOT talking
about penmanship, typing skills, word processing ability, nor any
other skill that produces a physical transcript that is easy on
the eyes.  Instead, I am talking about the ability to put words
together in a way that effectively expresses one's thoughts:
narration, composition, and rhetoric.  The tool that is required
for this is one's mind, and it is this tool that it takes years
to teach students to master.  Obviously, there must be some
channel to the physical medium.  But the skills required to use
these different channels are (for most of us) easy to acquire
compared to the difficulty of becoming a good writer.  Teachers
who think that they teach writing by teaching adeptness at
these various channels are greatly mistaken.  

Russell

manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (12/10/90)

In article <1199@halley.UUCP> publius@halley.UUCP@cs.utexas.edu
(Publius) writes: 
>... I have seen some PhDs in
>Computer Science who wrote dissertations on AI yet know little about
>the fundamentals of computer systems.

And I have seen some PhDs in Computer Science who wrote dissertations on
distributed systems yet know little about the fundamentals of AI.
Unfortunately, our field is becoming over-specialized, and most
postgraduate programs have unsatisfactory breadth requirements. What
this has to do with fads is beyond me, though, because virtually all CS
research is fad-driven, via military/governmental/industrial funding,
all of which are less interested in basic research than in short-term
agendas. 

What's more to the point is to recognize that fads are a fundamental
property of basic research (remember cold fusion? Deader than the
Village People), and to ensure that our teaching attempts to reconcile
both the fads of the day with more enduring material. 
--
\    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca>      "There is no law that vulgarity and
 \   Department of Computer Science      literary excellence cannot coexist."
 /\  University of British Columbia                        -- A. Trevor Hodge
/  \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394

manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (12/10/90)

In article <16495@s.ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>...  Why not start encouraging students to program with
>"alternative" projects?  For instance, wouldn't an "interactive timeline"
>program have just as much validity as any History term paper?  Wouldn't
>a computer simulation of a Chemistry experiment <not *every* experiment,
>but perhaps one or two> be acceptable in place of the experiment itself?
It's not so much a question of the educational validity of a particular
experience, but rather whether that experience really does the job. For
example, the interactive timeline project is particularly valuable to
get students thinking about historical processes, but they may well get
bogged down in factual matters. (I'll come back to this point in a
moment.) The chemistry simulation is also valuable, but isn't the same
as really mucking about with test-tubes and bunsen burners. (Why?
Because if you do the experiment for real, you are duplicating what the
actual discoverer(s) of that principle did. 

People often try to come up with clever applications for computers in
schools. As a computer scientist and a (former) high-school teacher, I
can confidently say that this is putting the cart before the horse.
First, we must try to determine what we're teaching and why, and only
then determine what means we will use to achieve this goal. `How can we
use the computer in our school?' is most definitely the wrong question.
`What tools should we use to solve problem X?' is the right question.

All of this leads to my claim that educators and educational
technologists have very different goals. The technologist should be
developing tools, and pushing the frontier of what can be done with a
computer (or other technologies) in an educational setting; but it is
the educator who must decide whether that tool is appropriate in a given
problem. 

Word processing is a case in point: in fact, it was the English
teachers who decided that WP was a good thing for students, not because
it meant that the students don't have to spend time studying boring old
Thomas Hardy instead, but because those teachers were able to see that
WP, if used appropriately, helps the student to produce better writing.
The onus is still on the teacher to ensure that the student is in fact
using WP appropriately. 

--
\    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca>      "There is no law that vulgarity and
 \   Department of Computer Science      literary excellence cannot coexist."
 /\  University of British Columbia                        -- A. Trevor Hodge
/  \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394