EH>I did not mean to imply that computers will make it unecessary for
EH>students  to learn to read, what I meant was that computers can teach
EH>reading much more  effectively that teachers can 
You are wrong here.  Computers may assist in teaching, but to be more 
effective???  No.  Children with reading difficulties need a human 
teacher.  As for the average students, computers may assist but, again, 
they could not replace.  Children can learn to read with out a teacher 
(by teaching themselves) but for most children, reading is done through 
a teacher's guidance (which does not rule out parents as teachers or 
siblings).
and the computers
EH>with speech capability will  make a reading class unecessary. From
EH>what I have observed in most classrooms  the students learn to read
EH>in spite of the teacher. 
Most??  I hardly think you have any statistics to back up this 
statement.  If this is an opinion that you hold -- a gut instinct -- 
fine.  But you state this as fact.  Where is the proof?  What are your 
credentials?
With the newest craze  being to pick one or
EH>the other specialized reading programs, many students  are not
EH>learning to read because they cannot learn phonics or they cannot
EH>learn by the basal method. When one method is chosen, it is done 
without
EH>  consideration of those who do not learn that way
(It's not done this way at my school). With the computer
EH>that is  properly programmed it can recognize student difficulities
EH>and use different  methods with different students.
Name some programs...I doubt that you can find any that will do what you 
claim better than a reading specialist.  Computers cannot "recognize" 
difficulties as you describe.  For a knowledgeable teacher watches the 
eye movement of a reader, watches to tracking, the overall body 
movements during a reading lesson.  Such a teacher could get many clues 
for a reading difficulty through oral reading (such as vocabulary 
deficiencies) and could gauge comprehension and application as well.  
Computers cannot do this because their use presumes a computer literate 
student.  Even with a "computer literate" student, computers are not as 
reliable as you claim.
Before people make such bold statements about computer use and its value 
to education (and society) they should read _In The Absence Of The 
Sacred_ "The Failure of Technology & the Survival of the Indian Nations" 
by Jerry Mander.  Computers are not the great good many claim they are.
 In case you are
EH>wondering, I do not think  most teachers are doing a very good job,
EH>especially here in Oklahoma City.  They do not address different
EH>learning styles and the computer can be  programmed to very easily
EH>recognize them and adjust its learning pattern to  accomodate them. 
Brain research continues to unlock the secrets of our complicated mind 
and teach us new ideas regarding learning.  Learning styles and our 
understanding of it are expanding and educators are beginning to see 
more clearly how differently children learn.  Most that I know attempt 
to address these styles and continue to stay current with acceptable 
research information.  To suggest so boldly that "most" teachers do not 
address different learning styles betrays your ignorance.   To suggest 
that computer, on the other hand, can "easily" identify different 
learning styles betrays it even more.  What you are saying is not true.  
If you say it is, then prove it.  
EH> 
EH>--- Maximus 2.02
EH>    
* CMPQwk #1.42* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------