***********************************************

THE FOLLOWING IS MY TAKE ON OPPENHEIMER'S ARTICLE, THE COMPUTER DELUSION. You can read the article at

http://www.TheAtlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm

I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN THE URL FLOATING AROUND. ENJOY. Oppenheimer's response

follows.

***********************************************

"Anyone there?" Copyright 1997 Miguel Guhlin

May be reproduced so long as credit is given.

"Hello, anyone there?"

These three words marked my first experience with a

personal computer. Deep down, I could feel the magic. I

could look into the green monochrome monitor and see a

reflection of some unknown person. Years later, I know

who that person was. I know from whence the magic

flowed, the answer to the question I'd posed to a dumb

Apple //e computer with 64K of RAM. The answer? For

awhile, I thought it was the world within reach of my

modem. NowÐBLBIG~1HTM `£)%) @%)/‡Ðtmlõõ1õõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõÐpeer_1rubric.hÐEER_R~1HTM `£)%) @%)/)ÐmlõõõõXõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõÐportfXolios.htÐORTFO~1HTM `£)%) @%)õPÐlõõõõõõmõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõÐprincmipal.htmÐRINCI~1HTM `£)%) @%)IÐ.htmlE õõõõõõõõõõõõõõÐprinc ipalroleÐRINCI~2HTM ÷£)%) @%)=xÐearniP&ng.gifõõÐProbl&embasedLÐROBLE~1GIF ÷£)%)÷£)¦'Ðproje~ctquestÐROJEC~1 ò> )ùï%)ÐpubwebõõõõõõõõõõõõÐUBWEB å})ùï%)Ðrubri»c.htmlõõÐUBRIC~1HTM ÷£)%) @%)64Ðseven.htmlõõõõÐEVEN~1 HTM Ñ£)%) @%)•NÐsizzlõe.htmlõõÐIZZLE~1HTM Ñ£)%) @%)4:ÐsucceGss.htmlÐUCCES~1HTM Ñ£)%) @%)¬,Ðsup.htmlõõõõõõõõÐUP~1 HTM Ñ£)%) @%)OÐteach�er.htmlÐEACHE~1HTM Ñ£)%) @%)S6ÐtmlõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõÐtech_quotes.hÐECH_Q~1HTM Ñ£)%) @%)-ÐtempeÒst.htmlÐEMPES~1HTM Ñ£)%) @%)ÈNÐtifteLch.htmlÐIFTEC~1HTM “£)%) @%)nôÐtips.ÁhtmlõõõõõõÐIPS~1 HTM “£)%) @%)òÐutiligtiesõõõõõõÐTILIT~1 ò> )Àï%)ÐwebbiòngõõõõõõõõõõÐEBBING ò> )Àï%)Ðwritt‹ech.htmlÐRITTE~1HTM õ£)%) @%)?[Ð_note¤sõõõõõõõõõõõõof altering their

future (i.e. creating new tools).

After carefully reading all the above points, one can

come to only one conclusion: Oppenheimer spent 14 pages

to say what we all know to be true. Simply, that our

humanity isn't measured in an hourglass on the screen, but in what and how we think. It is the "think" that we want our children to learn how to

do and that social process is not the province of

statistical researchers but of ethnographers.

If we expect our teachers to change the way they teach,

we have to change their understanding of how students

learn. The world becomes more complex on its own. We

still have to learn how to exist in it, but the premise

underlying a good education hasn't changed.

It remains learning how to deal with new situations, marshalling all the

resources at your command, commanding those resources

when appropriate and applying them in the right quantities. . .all

requires our developing and self-selecting tools to

match the task and using the scientific process

throughout.

Do I think better when I write, or do I write better

when I think? I hope, both. Thanks for reading!

Take care,

Miguel Guhlin mguhlin@tenet.edu

DISCLAIMER: Technology serves as a catalyst for change.

It's about time someone started complaining [again] that it's

what students do with the technology, not what the

technology does with them that counts. Maybe, it'll focus everyone

back on the fundamental question of "How DO students

learn? And, how does that change the way teachers

teach?" And, if you don't agree, feel free to argue. I

won't hold it against you--for too long. 8->

=========================================================

Message: "Deluded? HA!"

Written by Todd Oppenheimer on Mon Jul 7 22:54:10 1997

Miguel -- thanks greatly for obviously thinking

seriously about the issues in my story. That you took

away such a number of points is gratifying to me as a

writer. (We writers are often told that readers won't

recall much more than one main point in a story, and we

should therefore keep things simple.) Your note suggests

we can all stand to be a bit more ambitious.

-Todd Oppenheimer