Argument Against Teacherbots

Computers can do a lot in education. Of course, books and magazines can do a lot in education. Of course, a lot of what computers do well is simply replacing books and magazines. A children's library needs a librarian. It's not a dumpster full of books. Librarians (like teachers) know what children will like and understand at different ages. They can recommend books, and buy books that are popular, so you can look at the spines of books on a bookshelf, pull out a book, and find something interesting. Google is basically a dumpster full of books. It's helpful if you know what you want, but it only has one trick (counting links), and otherwise it offers you no guidance. You need to already have a pretty good education before you can use Google effectively. Otherwise, you're going to wind up like Jenny McCarthy.

Computers can supplement teachers, on the shelf along with the books. They can do calculations and manage data and create models. They're great for word processing.

Computers can't give you a woods full of birds. They can't give you the chemicals and equipment that you could find in a science stockroom. My science teacher threw a piece of sodium into a pan of water, but no educational computer program is going to tell you to throw a piece of sodium into a pan of water. Most of all, educational computer programs can't really answer questions, especially the unexpected questions, and the most insightful questions, like, "Why doesn't this work like the book said it does?"