The Computer Delusion

This article was thought provoking and since it is 10 years old it also provided a historical perspective of how computer technology was thought of. Ten years in digital technology is a very long time, I've discovered. This article reflects the "computers will save the world" mis-perception as well as "computers will destroy education" misperception.
I agreed with several points that Oppenheimer made. First, no tool (computer), software program or any other type of technology will ever replace an excellent teacher. Children need excellent teachers and human interaction to learn any subject to their full ability. A computer doesn't make a poor teacher better, it is how these tools are used in the classroom.
Second,we have to balance how much funding is spent on technology in comparison to other elements of a strong educational program, such as music, physical education, shop classes and the arts. This is not only the cost of the CPU's, monitors and software but also the cost of technicians, computer lab staff, retrofitting buildings and rooms with wiring, ventilation systems, wifi, furniture. Now a days, the computers are probably the least expensive item. The last computer system I purchased for one of our ELL teachers cost $400 for the CPU and $179 for the flat screen monitor.
Thirdly, instructional time can be wasted if students are only using computers to do "worksheet" drills. A new way of wasting students time is to have them try to take TESA and ELPA high stakes tests and have the systems not work. Oppenheimer had not identified this one issue in this article but I am sure he has identified this in more current articles.
Lastly, children, as well as adults, can spend too much time using all forms of technology and end up limiting their time interacting with others which could limit their social development and definitely impact their health from basicly not spending much time being physically active.
There is a great deal that I disagreed with Oppenheimer on regarding computers but some of my disagreements are from having hindsight from the last 10 years. By the time I reached the 8th page of the article I was becoming irritated with all the loaded language that he was using and the oversimplification of his logic. I was beginning to wonder if Todd Oppenheimer was working with our current government administration in writing the weekly "talking points."
As an example, he described a study about a reading software program, Reader Rabbit "caused students to suffer (now there is a loaded word) a 50 percent drop in creativity". He explains that "49 students using the program for 7 months were no longer able to answer open-ended questions and showed a markedly diminished ability to brainstorm with fluency and originality." Reading Rabbit is not designed to be a complete reading instructional program and I would also make the case if a teacher had children work through a workbook for 7 months they too would no longer be able to answer open-ended questions.
I think at times Oppenheimer makes a case against computers but his logic is not sound. He describes on page 7 that some specialists in childhood development have great concerns for the very young-preschoolers through 3rd graders being "introduced to something as technical and one-dimensional as a computer." In my thinking, the use of computers is not mutually exclusive of having hands-on learning activities, playing and interacting with the physical world. Oppenheimer then goes on to provide an example that is from the book Endangered Minds of an English teacher who could readily tell which of the students' essays were conceived on a computer. "They don't link ideas," the teacher says." This would be a common problem of student writing whether they did the work on a computer or on paper. This may be an instructional issue more than what tool the student was using?
This was a great article for creating thought provoking responses and in juxtaposition with the article Digital Native, Digital Immigrant which I read first I probably looked at Oppenheimer's article more critically. The quote that really caught my attention from the article was: "Kris Meisling, a senior geological-research adviser for Mobil Oil, told me that 'people who use computers a lot slowly grow rusty in their ability to think.' " I have to say I might disagree with this statement.