There are times when I am ashamed to be an adult. What would the reaction be if a Web proficiency test was proposed for anyone over forty before they were allowed on? Yet we know that children are massively more able in this medium than adults of that age. How about a competence test for staff of the Public Policy Research Institute - they could only keep their jobs if they could demonstrate Web proficiency? We know that one of the major obstacles to electronic government is the reluctance of civil servants to adopt challenging new approaches to communication. We don't suggest testing Web competence wholesale and dumping out those slow to learn.
The Web is a communications medium. Users learn through practice. Children learn faster and more effectively than adults in this as every other facet of a changing society. There are no more dangers lurking in this medium than in any other. The common factor of course is that pretty well all those dangers are posed by adults, just as on our roads. Why do we concentrate on cycling proficiency in children instead of driving proficiency in adults?
I have seen very young children making superb use of the Web. It is a medium that suits their needs for flexible approaches to communication. If we let them, they will teach us new ways, much to our advantage.
Stephen Rennie, Leeds Metropolitan University
[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Lealand [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: testing children
>
> Dear All: has there been much attention given a new Jan 30th report
> 'Communications: revolution and reform' from the UK-based Institute for
> Public Policy Research ("a left-leaning think tank"), calling for "all
> children to pass the equivalent of a cycling proficiency test before they
> are allowed on the digital superhighway ... eleven year-olds should have to
> take a 'surfing proficiency test' to advise them what to trust on the
> net...'
>
> Is this a case of over-bearing paternalism, or a good idea?
>
> regards
>
> Geoff Lealand
|