Homeschooling and Computers

When the homeschooling movement first began about twenty-five years ago, the personal computer didn't even exist, but a recent nationwide study of homeschoolers indicated that about 84% of homeschooling families now use a computer as part of their educational program.¹ This not only reflects the growth of computers throughout our culture, but it also indicates that many homeschooling parents assume that computers can help children learn more effectively. At present, this appears to be a questionable assumption

The rapid growth of the computer industry has led many educators to predict a transformation in the nature of learning. The government has also joined in the bandwagon, with the Clinton Administration proposing the goal of "a computer in every classroom." But if we think that plugging every kid into a computer will transform education and save the world, we're fooling ourselves-and possibly harming our children.

Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple Computer, was one of the first evangelists for the concept of widespread computer use in education, and he announced a plan to give an Apple computer to every school in the country. After years of experience, however, he found that technology doesn't automatically improve education. According to Jobs:

I used to think that technology could help education, and I've probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I've had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve ... Lincoln did not have a website at the log cabin where his parents homeschooled him, and he turned out pretty interesting. Historical precedent shows that we can turn out amazing human beings without technology. Precedent also shows that we can turn out very uninteresting human beings with technology. ²

With all the hype about the benefits of technology for education, it's easy to fall into the trap of believing that a computer will solve all your homeschooling problems. But the reality is that hundreds of studies have yet to conclusively demonstrate that students learn more effectively from computers than from human teachers. In a recent article in Atlantic Monthly, Todd Oppenheimer summarized the research on computers in the classroom very clearly:

Unfortunately, many of these studies are more anecdotal than conclusive. Some, including a giant, oft-cited meta-analysis of 254 studies, lack the necessary scientific controls to make solid conclusions possible. The circumstances are artificial and not easily repeated, results aren't statistically reliable, or, most frequently, the studies did not control for other influences, such as differences between teaching methods. This last factor is critical, because computerized learning inevitable forces teachers to adjust their style-only sometimes for the better. Some studies were industry-funded, and thus tended to publicize mostly positive findings. "The research is set up in a way to find benefits that aren't really there," Edward Miller, a former editor of the Harvard Education Letter, says. "Most knowledgeable people agree that most of the research isn't valid. It's so flawed it shouldn't be called research. Essentially, it's just worthless." Once the faulty studies are weeded out, Miller says, the ones that remain "are inconclusive" - that is, they show no significant change in either direction. ³

This view is also expressed by other researchers. Jane Healy, the author of Endangered Minds, reaches the same conclusion as Oppenheimer in her latest book, Failure to Connect. After an exhaustive review of the research about children, computers and learning, Healy says:

Some studies indicate CAI (computer-assisted instruction) in drill-and-practice programs and learning systems can be useful for specific types of teaching. But...much of the positive research has been funded by the producers of these products and thus arouses skepticism....In short, the research on software's effectiveness is still limited, vague, and open to question. Some computer use appears effective within a narrow set of educational objectives, and it appears to motivate children, at least temporarily. Can it actually improve learning? No one really knows. ⁴

• Computers are good at conveying factual information, but poor at emulating human interaction. Learning that transforms the individual, which is the kind of learning that Oak Meadow encourages, involves a dynamic exchange of multi-sensory information that includes not only physical, emotional, and mental qualities, but also the subtleties of the human spirit. In comparison to a rich context such as this, even the best educational software is superficial, predictable and limited.
• Regardless of how innovative any of the current educational software programs may be, using a computer is essentially a limited experience involving a keyboard, a mouse, a display screen, and two hands. When children are using a computer, they are not actively using their bodies, and this tends to inhibit the development of the will and the integration of mind and body.
• As mentioned previously, despite hundreds of research studies, there is no consistent, reliable evidence that students learn more effectively with computers than they do with a human teacher. If children lose the rich multi-sensory context of human interaction when they use computers, and there is no evidence that children learn better from computers, then why use them?
• When students learn with a computer as the primary source of instruction, they miss much of the interaction with parents and siblings that helps to develop strong family relationships-one of the major benefits of homeschooling.

• As a communications tool for older students, using email, discussion forums, and live chat rooms (such as those found on the Oak Meadow web site) to interact with teachers and other homeschoolers.
• As an information resource for older students, using search engines to locate sites with information that supplement the curriculum.
• As a tool to facilitate the writing process for older students, using standard word-processing programs.

As you notice, I mentioned consistently that these uses are "for older students." We emphasize the importance of cooperating with the developmental stages in children, and we believe that extensive early computer use is detrimental for children. This is not a popular view. Many parents are convinced that early computer use will enable their children to expand their intellects, and "edutainment" software developers are aggressively pushing this illusion, by combining superficial educational objectives with flashy cartoon characters that captivate children. Companies offering computer classes are also taking advantage of this rapidly-growing market niche, enrolling children as young as two and a half. ⁵ In spite of the enthusiasm of many parents for early computer use, however, there is no indication that young children actually benefit from using computers.

At what age should children begin using computers? Because computer use is such a relatively new phenomena, there is a lot of debate on this issue. Jane Healy says:

I have recently come to believe that computers-at least as they are currently being used-are not necessary or even desirable in the lives of most children under age seven. ⁶

I have a lot of respect for Jane Healy, and Failure to Connect is an excellent book that explores computers and education in great detail, but on this point I disagree with her. I believe her recommendation of seven years old is too low, but it does serve to demonstrate the minimum parameters being considered by informed educators.

Joseph Chilton Pearce, the author of Magical Child and Evolution's End, recommends a much higher minimum age. He proposes that children should not begin using computers until they have reached the stage that Piaget referred to as "Formal Operations" - about 11 or 12 years old. It isn't until that age, Pearce contends, that children have a strong enough sense of self to avoid being unduly influenced by the experience of the computer itself and the effects of the information they will receive through the computer. ⁷

According to Eugene Schwartz, Director of Teacher Training at Sunbridge College and an experienced Waldorf teacher, students should wait until high school before using computers:

In most Waldorf high schools, students work with computers in the eleventh grade, after they have learned about the mathematical, scientific, and historical bases upon which the computer is formulated. ⁸

The issue is not computers themselves. I use computers extensively, and I have no objection to adults using them. But children are not adults, and it is our responsibility to protect them from aspects of the adult world that have the potential to harm them and limit their potential while they are still in their formative stages. We must remember that computers are only as good as the human beings who program them, and the current generation of programmers who are creating the software that enables computers to do all of these fascinating things did not grow up with computers. During children's formative years, we have to immerse them in physical, artistic and contextually-rich experiences that provide fertile soil for the neurological structures that are developing. These are the kinds of experiences that for generations have helped children develop the ability to think clearly, imaginatively, and creatively. Then, as they grow older, they can take that clarity, imagination and creativity and apply it to anything they want - including computers.

There is no doubt that computers are powerful tools and that children need to learn how to operate them effectively. But how and when we introduce computers into the educational process can make a significant difference in the lives of our children. In this case, it's clearly a matter of "better late than early."

Notes

1. Brian Ray, Strengths of Their Own (Salem, Oregon: NHERI Publications, 1997).
2. "Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Great Thing," Wired 4.02 (February 1996).
3. Todd Oppenheimer, "The Computer Delusion," Atlantic Monthly (July 1997), p. 47.
4. Jane Healy, Failure to Connect (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998), pp. 62-64.
5. Education Week, December 11, 1996, p. 5.
6. Failure to Connect, pp. 205-206.
7. Joseph Chilton Pearce, personal communication, September 26, 1998.
8. Eugene Schwartz, "Computers in the Waldorf School," Renewal 7(2) (Fair Oaks, California: Association of Waldorf Schools in North America, 1998), p. 18.