Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!decuac!shlump.nac.dec.com!mfgmem.dec.com!erickson
From: erickson@mfgmem.dec.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Educomputing 2000
Message-ID: <7143@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 29 Dec 89 14:37:01 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Organization: Advanced Memory Test Development
		Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 80


        This is  a  call  for SPECULATION regarding the grade school/high
        school educational computing environment of the year 2000.

        In perusing this conference I  have  seen MANY notes by concerned
        parents asking for advice in buying  a  family  computer --- they
        want  functionality  and  performance,  but  they want  the  same
        computing environment that their kids have at school.  Today this
        generally means buying something from the Apple ][ family. 

        I'm curious about what the future  might  bring  --- specifically
        the state of educational computing in the  year  2000.   I recall
        the  situation  when  I  graduated  from  High  School  in  1980:
        educational  computing  for  MOST  elementary, junior, and senior
        high schools meant:

                (a) No computing
                (b) Time sharing (teletypes and 300 baud!)
                (c) Early personal computers and home-brew software
                        o Ohio Scientific
                        o PETs
                        o Early Apples

        My personal experience  was a little bit of (b) and a lot of (c),
        the latter on Ohio Scientific CHALLENGER computers.  At that time
        we never expected personal computing  to be what it is today, ten
        years later.    But  at  the  same  time I see some simularities.
        Educators  (School  Districts)  tend  to  gravitate  towards  the
        low-risk option --- spend money on moderately-priced systems with
        huge installed bases and a wealth of courseware.  This is a trend
        that will continue, IMHO.  Computer  manufacturers  can crank out
        all  the  workstation-class machines they want, but  the  schools
        will continue to purchase machines like the ][  family because of
        the wealth of courseware available.

        In  a  recent  note  someone  downplayed  the courseware/Apple ][
        argument, suggesting that the majority of the 10K titles are  OLD
        --- that the NEW/GOOD stuff is available on newer platforms, such
        as  the  Amiga or the MAC.  Is this a valid argument?    Consider
        also the library of user-developed courseware. 

        My  father  is  typical  of  a  breed  of educator that both buys
        commercially available  courseware  and  develops  his  own.   He
        chooses the Apple  ][  family  specifically because it allows him
        this duality --- new  courseware  (physics-related) is constantly
        available and the programming environment  is  simple  enough for
        him to easily, without  formal  training,  create  his own.  When
        add-in  hardware  is required (photoelectric  timing  gates,  for
        example)  it is relatively inexpensive, if  he  cannot  build  it
        himself.    I  propose that in ten  year's  time  the  elementary
        /junior/senior  high  school  computer of choice must allow  this
        duality  ---  a  deep  library  of courseware, plus a  supportive
        development environment  that  allows  easy  user  development of
        courseware.

        This was Stephen Jobs'  dream  with  the NeXT machine.  But is it
        realistic to expect a migration  of  NeXT  technology down to the
        lower-end educational computing  environment?  Is is realistic to
        expect my kids to be UNIX-literate?

        My personal vision:   a  ][-class  machine (realitively speaking)
        with  a  supportive  development  environment.        In   short,
        object-oriented    application  development  on  a  ][-compatible
        machine.   Performance that makes such a machine practical/"fun",
        but price  that reduces the platform's perceived risk in the eyes
        of educators.   Sophistication that is invisible to the user when
        heshe wants it to  be,  yet is easily accessible when it must be.
        NeXT-class  application-development  innovations  mapped  onto  a
        ][-class platform,  much  the  same  as  the  way the ][gs mapped
        Mac-class interface innovations onto the ][-class platform.

        So what do you think?  Where are we headed?  I'm sure there are a
        few original opinions out there!  8^)

        John Erickson
        *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
        *       John Erickson       *        erickson@mfgmem.dec.com      *
        * Advanced Test Development *  ...!decwrl!mfgmem.dec.com!erickson *
        *   Digital Equipment Corp. *  erickson%mfgmem.dec@decwrl.dec.com *
        *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*