The Lessons of Educational Software
As the author of “Every Family’s Guide to Computers,” I’ve had the opportunity to review over 300 software-based educational products, and I must take great exception to the attempt by Michael A. Hiltzik (“Lesson No. 1 on Educational Software: It Does Not Work,” Dec. 13) to disparage all learning software out of hand.
For starters, no one I’ve met is techno-crazed enough to conclude that children’s educational software should replace books. The written word is still No. 1, and the goal of every parent ought to be to raise children who are comfortable spending an afternoon reading a favorite novel or perusing a genuine hard-bound reference book or encyclopedia.
Hiltzik does well to remind parents that educational software is a poor replacement for pen and paper, but I have never met anyone who bought Broderbund Software’s “Harry and the Haunted House” for their children and thus became less inclined to read aloud to them.
I think Mr. Hiltzik will discover that parents who are willing to spend $30 to $40 on an educational software program are also the kind of parents who strongly promote reading under their roof.
As the author of a successful computer tome, I give seminars at bookstores helping families set up a computer and pick out the right software. The people that attend are well-read, bright parents seeking to expand their child’s learning horizons, not slackers looking for an electronic baby sitter.
Software can introduce a whole new world to children. Concepts of flight, cellular meiosis, architectural design and ancient civilizations can be introduced to children by educational learning software long before a kid can understand such concepts through books.
As is true with books, there is a lot of junk software out there, and Hiltzik’s point that many programs cram multimedia doodads into their games at the expense of real information is well-taken. But picking out good software takes investigation, and just as one should not assume an expensive leather-bound book contains good text, software shoppers should beware if a program oversells its multimedia bells and whistles.
WINSTON STEWARD
Silver Lake
*
Hiltzik’s criticism of elementary schools that skimp on basic skills and the arts in order to provide the latest high-tech computer hardware and software is well-taken.
As a former educator myself, I would be the first to give funding priorities to real live teachers and traditional school resources like well-stocked libraries and fully staffed arts facilities.
But why condemn pre- high school computer programs as useless frills? Let’s not throw all the Apples out just because one or two are tainted. As any experienced educator will tell you, the more ways you have to motivate students, the more students you will reach, and while I agree with Hiltzik that computer-based education is no panacea, I must also urge anyone with access to a public forum, especially widely read journalists, to refrain from rushing to judgments based on limited personal experiences.
His observation that all learning software is a cynical industry scam goes way over the edge. Even if we accept the expert’s estimate that 75% of all learning software is worthless, that leaves 25% that contributes something positive. And by the time that 25% runs the gantlet of the typical school selection committee, probably closer to 10% of the most useful software ever ends up in the classroom.
JAMES W. CRANDALL
Oxnard
*
Thank you, Michael Hiltzik, for so eloquently stating what needed to be said about so-called educational computer programs, and for having the courage to say it under the very noses of the large corporations who advertise those same wares in the Los Angeles Times. This software is clearly a “need” imposed upon parents by these profiteers.
My advice to parents is to put the money they would have spent on these games into savings accounts for their children’s college educations by day and to read to their children by night. Now that’s money well spent.
CRAIG LEENER
Valencia
*
A while back I was at one of our computer labs and some fifth-graders were tutoring first-graders on the computer.
I asked them what they were doing, and they said: “Blowing up clocks. When we type the right numbers in here, the clock blows up.”
The program was supposed to be teaching them how to tell time. Were they learning anything? Beats me; they couldn’t tell the time on the analog clock on the wall.
At the Val Verde Unified School District, we have attempted to take a slightly different approach to computing and technology in the classroom, and have received a lot of criticism from parents and teachers because we don’t have much “educational” software.
We have created what we call the Val Verde Information Network. The focus of our program is to treat the computer as a tool for creating and exploring and to enhance the learning experience, but not be the sole source. You cannot teach someone to be an artist by teaching him how to use a computer drawing program, but if you add a computer drawing program to an art student’s bag of tools, you may create a successful artist.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to combat the media and marketing blitzes for educational software. Teaching is not an easy task, and I fear that many parents and teachers are looking for educational software to be the beneficial baby sitter that occupies the students’ time and teaches them something at the same time.
