考研英语阅读命题思路透析和真题揭秘(52)

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-indeed, 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-ed 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, presumptuous to insist that there will only be so many jobs for so many scientists, so many businessmen, 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.

对于计算机课堂教学，人们在观点上存在着一条无形的界限：一种观点是以学生的就业前景为理由，另一种是以激进的教育改革为理由、希望借此从根本上改革教育制度。很少有人就这一区别--更确切地说是矛盾--撰文进行探讨，但它却是促使计算机进入课堂运动出现问题的关键所在。

旨在使学生胜任某种工作的教育是职业教育，设立这种教育的目的与法律所规定的普及教育之间有全然不同。法律要求所有儿童在十几岁必须接受教育的目的并非单纯地要加强他们的就业能力。我们更应该具有的是作为美国公民的某种观念，即他必须准确判断外在因素对自身的生活和幸福的影响，否则他的公民特征就是不完整的。但是情况并不总是如此；在法律要求所有儿童必须上学至一定年龄之前，人们普遍认为有些儿童天生就不适合接受这种教育。随着工业化给国家带来的乐观主义精神，人们已经接受了人人都适合受教育的观念。而倡导计算机教育的人们就抛弃了这一乐观理念，取而代之的是与他们乐观外表相悖的悲观论调。一方面主张位普及教育而设立计算机课堂教学，另一方面则主张位了就业的目的，由于计算机教育的倡导者们混淆了以上两种目的，因此他们往往只强调计算机对于就业前景的影响、而忽视了其教育成就。

对适当的学生实行职业教育也是有道理的。欧洲的许多学校很早就引进职业培训的概念，以确保孩子们具备欲从事的职业所需的技能。然而，去臆断科学家、商人、会计职位的数量是武断的。此外，在我们这么大的一个国家里，经济延展到这么多的州，涉及到这么多的国际公司，因而要按照数量培养出所需要的各类专业人员是不太可能的。

但是对少数学生而言，职业培训也许是可取之路，因为在其他因素相同的情况下，熟练的技能是能否得到工作的关键性因素。当然，目前计算机的基本操作非常简单。不需要花毕生的时间去熟悉各种不同软件程序的使用。当然如果想成为一名计算机工程师，那就是另一回事了。掌握基本的计算机技能最长也只要一两个月时间。不管怎样，基本的计算机技能只是对成为专业技术人员所需的各种实际技能的补充。当然应该看到的是，不管是职业学校还是普通学校，如果混淆计算机教学的目的，就都不会受益。