问答题 An invisible border divides those arguing for computers in the classroom on the behalf of students" career prospects and those arguing for computers in the classroom for broader reasons of radical educational reform. Very few writers on the subject have explored this distinction-in-deed, contradiction, which goes to the heart of what is wrong with the campaign to put computers in the classroom.
An education that aims at getting a student a certain kind of job is a technical education, justified for reasons radically different from why education is universally required by law. It is not simply to raise everyone"s job prospects that all children are legally required to attend school into their teens. Rather, we have a certain conception of the American citizen, a character who is incomplete if he cannot competently assess how his livelihood and happiness are affected by things outside of himself. But this was not always the case, before it was legally required for all children to attend school until a certain age, it was widely accepted that some were just not equipped by nature to pursue this kind of education. With optimism characteristic of all industrialized countries, we came to accept that everyone is fit to be educated. Computer-education advocates forsake this optimistic notion for a pessimism that betrays their otherwise cheery outlook. Banking on the confusion between educational and vocational reasons for bringing computers into schools, computer-education advocates often emphasize the job prospects of graduates over their educational achievement.
There are some good arguments for a technical education given the right kind of student. Many European schools introduce the concept of professional training early on in order to make sure children are properly equipped for the professions they want to join. It is, however, pre-sumptuous to insist that there will only be so many jobs for so many scientists, so many business-men, so many accountants. Besides, this is unlikely to produce the needed number of every kind of professional in a country as large as ours and where the economy is spread over so many states and involves so many international corporations.
But, for a small group of students, professional training might be the way to go since well-developed skills, all other factors being equal, can be the difference between having a job and not of course, the basics of using any computer these days are very simple. It does not take a lifelong acquaintance to pick up various software programs. If one wanted to become a computer engineer, that is, of course, an entirely different story. Basic computer skills take—at the very longest—a couple of months to learn. In any case, basic computer skills are only complementary to the host of real skills that are necessary to becoming any kind of professional. It should be observed, of course, that no school, vocational or not, is helped by a confusion over its purpose.
【正确答案】
【答案解析】对于计算机课堂教学,在看法的争论上存在着一条无形的界限:有人提倡以此增加学生的就业前景,有人则希望以此达到从根本上改革教育的目的。很少有人撰文提示这一区别——或者更确切地说是矛盾,但是这一问题恰恰是主张计算机课堂教学这一运动错在何处的症结之所在。
为使学生获得某种工作的教育是职业教育,设立这种教育的目的与法律规定的人人都要受教育的目的全然不同。法律要求所有孩子十几岁前接受教育的目的并不单纯是为了增加他们的就业希望。然而,我们对一个美国公司的素质有一种既定的认识,认为如果它不能充分地评价外在因素对其生活和幸福的影响,它的个性是不完整的。但是,情况并不总是如此,在法律规定所有孩子必须在校学习到某个年龄之前,人们普遍认为有些孩子本性上是不适于接受这种教育的。随着乐观主义的思想深入到所有工业化国家,人们开始接受每个人都适合受教育的观念。主张计算机教育的人放弃了这种乐观主义认识,而代之以一种悲观的态度,这种态度背离了他们本来应该有的乐观的观念。一方面是主张为普通教育而设立计算机课堂教学,另一方面是主张为职业的目的,由于对以上两种目的的混淆,计算机教育倡导者往往只强调计算机对就业前景的影响而忽视了其教育成就。
对适合的学生进行职业教育也有某些充足的论据。为了使孩子们具备欲从事的职业所需要的技能,许多欧洲学校很早就引进了职业教育这一概念。然而,如果因此就坚持认为只有这么多的工作在等着同样多的科学家、商人及会计师来做,就未免太自以为是了。何况,职业教育也不可能培训出像我们这样一个经济发展遍及许多地区,同时又有许多跨国公司的大国中的每一种职业所需要的足够的专业人才。
但是,对于为数不多的学生来说,职业培训可能是必要的,因为假设其他条件相同,熟练的技能可能是他们最终能否找到工作的决定性因素。当然,目前所使用的任何计算机的基本技能都很简单,学会使用各种软件不必花费毕生的时间。当然,如果有人想成为计算机工程师,那完全是另一回事。掌握计算机基本技能最多只需要一两个月。不管怎样,计算机基本技能只能是要成为任何一种专业人员所需要的各种职业技能的补充。当然,应该看到,不管是普通学校还是职业学校,如混淆其目的,都不会从中受益。