Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!dlindsle From: dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Against educational fads (was: math credit) Message-ID: <1807@blackbird.afit.af.mil> Date: 10 Dec 90 17:19:45 GMT References: <15488@cs.utexas.edu> <39937@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology; WPAFB, OH Lines: 40 In article <39937@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: >In article <15488@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >>----- >>In article marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe) writes: > > > >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 > I analyzed survey data for an entire city (roughly 1M population) school system on whether Write-to-Read introduced any significant improvement. After eliminating the influence of other variables (i.e. male vs. female, family income, etc.) the difference was not anywhere near as great as anyone had been led to believe. >The earlier you introduce the correct tool , the better. For writing the tool >is the word processor. Kindergarten is early enough for most kids. > Absolutely. Use the correct tools. >All this back to the basics talk is junk. Absolutely *not*. The job at hand consists of more than using the correct tools. All a tool can do is make the transition from idea to reality less painless, i.e. reduce the drudgery. Word processors, etc., are great for getting things on paper, but you have to have something to *say* first. And things like grammar help you to learn to have something to say (i.e. by learning to organize your thoughts). If a mechanic has one of those fancy computers that can tell what's wrong with your car inside of 5 seconds, great. But the mechanic still has to look under the hood -- and know *where* under the hood to look -- to fix it. The tool makes the use of one's training more efficient. It is not and cannot be a substitute for that training. All that "back to the basics" means (IMHO) is that the fanciest tools are no substitute for the proper training... Dave L #24601